Sure, we accepted that it was musically left for dead many years ago, but this list shows how much it's become mainstream chic. Punkmatch dot com? puh-leeze! The end is near.
23 Pieces Of Evidence That Punk Is Dead (http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexnaidus/pieces-of-evidence-that-punk-is-dead)
ha, my first time back and the first thing i see is Punk R.I.P.? i shouldn't have strayed Dave. but that article has nothing to do with the kinda Punk i play.
Some of those are sad but I think the Bieber/Black Flag t-shirt is pretty funny.
I remember Punk. When I moved to Austin The Big Boys and The Dicks were the bands to see.
#3, #10 snicker, snicker. :mrgreen:
I never was much of a fan of the 'punk scene;' even 30 years ago, it seemed like a fashion statement. There's some good music there, though. Oh... and most of the people appearing on that page should be killed for good of humanity.
Funny.... but punk will never die. What is dead is the marketing horse the music/fashion/etc industries are still beating.
Punk (which is not an aesthetic genre, but that's another discussion - the industy has tried to coopt the aesthetic, or what they perceive/distilled as the aesthetic, without the substance and that is the source of the fail) has permeated music culture; the rise of the indie music scene is (part of) it's legacy. .... and if you look for it, there are still kids starting proper punk bands (whatever you consider that to be, hardcore or otherwise), the scene is just under the radar a bit vs this 'pop punk' re-explosion, and I think they like it that way.
.... and yes, Psycho has a good point, even back in the day ("first wave" - whatever) there were 'punk' kids who didn't get it either, or who (appeared to be) focused on the parts of punk that were of lesser importance (how one dresses was important to punk, but not in the typical way, and not above all else). I mean, the Clash even documented that (see White Man in Hammersmith Palais), while themselves being rather punked out.... and that sort of paradox is part of human nature anyway.
In 1977 Punk was my doorway into music.
#16 made me laugh.
The John Lydon butter ad shouldn't be on the list. He's always wanted to capitalize on his fame.
There were good and not so good punk bands like in any other genre. The political side of it was immature and nihilistic and in fact apolitical. Not sure what the Sex Pistols could have contributed to Martin Luther King's I have a Dream speech had they been around to be invited. Maybe Joan Baez with her acoustic guitar was more poignant after all.
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.
And measured against its self perception/delusion, the first wave of punk (and don't pull that trick of defining The New York Dolls, The MC 5 and The Stooges as punk, before 1976/7 all three were found in the hard and heavy rock bins of the record stores, I was there) has left very few musical landmarks other than a few singles. There is no punk Sgt. Pepper, no punk Made in Japan live classic, no punk Blonde on Blonde and no punk Dark Side of the Moon. Heck, there isn't even a punk Frampton Comes Alive and ole Pete, even with hair, never claimed to be relevant to the world at large. He thought he just played music a few people liked.
The Clash's London Calling and the Ramones' debut (though the Ramones were to me more bubblegun than punk and I don't mean that negatively, I like them to this day) are exceptions, I grant you that.
This thread made me realize I hadn't listened to certain albums in a while, so today's playlist included the Heartbreakers' L.A.M.F.
That's not punk either, Dave, just urban rock'n'roll.
Quote from: Dave W on September 25, 2013, 10:19:24 PM
This thread made me realize I hadn't listened to certain albums in a while, so today's playlist included the Heartbreakers' L.A.M.F.
Real punk or not, a good choice ;D
I liked the Heartbreakers, but missed David Johansen's leer. But I heard nothing on their debut that made me cry out "punk"! They didn't have that chugging sawblade sound and looked way too cool to be punk, not ratty enough. Also the junkie image, never thought heroin a particularly "punk" drug, never mind Sid Vicious, he was the end of punk, not the beginning. Last but not least: The Heartbreakers' were just not angry enough to be punk.
I could never for the life of me hear what was supposed to be punk about The Stranglers and Television either. And American punk is generally too athletic and not miserable enough.
And I owned New York Dolls albums and MC5 ones long before I had even read the word punk anywhere (other than in The Sweet's 1975 single Turn it Down where Steve Priest has a "some kind of punk" one liner, I first heard of/read the term in the NME sometime around the summer of 1976). I marvelled at the fact why my former hard rock heroes New York Dolls and MC5 should all of the sudden be regarded as punk when they had never used that term. "Kick out the Jams" was for me prototype heavy metal.
The Stranglers and Television may have just been lumped in with punk just by being new or different than normal at the time punk was really emerging.
It's not like they avoided the tag either - it was cool to be punk in 76/77, even Police (all three of them former prog rock or jazz musos!) wanted to be. But it took one listen to realize that The Stranglers had heard more early Deep Purple Mk 1 (their keyboarder was a Jon Lord-buff) and Doors and Television more Wishbone Ash and Grateful Dead than either of those bands had heard, say, The Stooges or The New York Dolls.
Quote from: uwe on September 26, 2013, 03:50:50 AM
That's not punk either, Dave, just urban rock'n'roll.
Maybe in Germany. Definitely not here. They were one of the first bands called punk.
Quote from: uwe on September 25, 2013, 07:33:50 PM
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.
I see that, but I'd argue that much of that is a) warranted (alienated youth and music that didn't speak to them at all - the kids to this day, e.g. yours, say the radio/top 40 is shit and how seriously do you take that?), b) due to the first wave of punk being, on average, not even legal (i.e. to drink or age of majority etc) when it started, and c) under attack/criticism form all sides. Yeah they were a bit immature and self-righteous.... but so was (mostly) everyone else at that age (except nobody was documenting it). That and many of those glam bands were just as elitist, just had the sense/lack of cahones (foolhardiness), to not go around talking shit about it like the Bromley Contingent (for example) would.
Despite your lack of intended insult (none taken, I ain't them), calling The Ramones more bubblegum not punk makes no sense to me (no 2 bands in the first wave sounded remotely similar, so what is exactly the "punk sound?" ... and also The Ramones schtick is the stylistic basis for what became hardcore and most of what is now classified as punk). Sure "chewing out a rythmn on my bubblegum" etc (a classic, awesome line by the way) and they were very comic book (even to the point of being actual comic book characters, literally, see below) that was never incompatible with punk. Punk, as the Ramones saw it (if Do You Remember Rock n Roll Radio can be taken as a manifesto) did look back to what was seen as the golden age of rock before all the perceived indulgences crept in (including the start of the popification of rock - aka bubblegum). Bubblegum implies lack of substance, and though there is a bit of a paradox at play (that revered golden age had some of the most banal lyrics ever) The Ramones can hardly be accused of that (on a consistant basis - they took themselves unseriously enough to allow the odd sappy love song or fun song, in between the more socio-political ones).
Those protopunk bands (I believe now classified as garage or glam, sometimes both, depending on which and what stage of their career; music stores were not as imaginative with the catagories back then I suspect) you mentioned, Iggy/Stooges specifically, were very influential in one way you are ignoring - being over the top and (trying to) make people wonder if they're taking you too seriously. Iggy self-mutilationg in ways that didn't (usually or intentionally) cause much more than superficial damage, but created a right bloody mess vs being snooty brats - because that's what the.... I dunno what to call it, establishment/adults/moral majority, thought of them so they owned and hyperbolised that actually elitist attitude as a form of satire - see Siouxsie with the swastika armband and the resulting controversy.... not that I think she should have done that, it was stupid, but she was what, 17 at the time, and had all sorts of media already crying out to burn her, some more specifically than others, at the stake; nothing to loose).
This elitism was a self-defence mechanism. Not necessarily a very good or mature one, but nevertheless.
Also there's footage of (I think) Queen (or was it Roxy Music?) dissing the shit out of the Pistols (after, I think, a bit of a scuffle that saw one of the Pistols get a good clocking; they were in the same studio recording their albums), so guilty all around.
(http://comicbooked.comicbookedllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MusicRamones.jpg)
Quote from: Dave W on September 26, 2013, 09:11:33 AM
Maybe in Germany. Definitely not here. They were one of the first bands called punk.
You Americans. You had to send them to the UK first to even take notice of them.
That's a pretty Anglophone disease I'm afraid. Without a domestic native language music scene (that can't be filled by import bands), and so many wannabe big bands in every city a certain cynicism/scepticism re the local young blood sets in.
Toronto/Canada is pretty bad for that and I am told that it is similar, if slightly less acute, in the UK too. Quebec with it's franco-cultural protectionism being the exception (as well as smaller/remoter towns without big touring bands coming through all the time).
I didn't want to insult The Ramones, but I could imagine them belting out Yummy, Yummy anytime! They had a sense of pop harmony. Blitzkrieg Bop is a great pop song. Never mind what they were, that first album is iconic.
The Pistols were always quick to pick a fight and lose it, but, admittedly, they never bowed down. Of course there were knocks from old school or to use the phrase popular back then "boring old farts" bands. Pat Travers (a Canadian, you know how they are) wanted a "duel" with the Pistols where he would play with only three strings, his bassist with only two strings and the drummer just with snare, hi-hat and bass drum, claiming that he would still wipe the floor with the Pistols musically. The "challenge" ruled the NME for a while, but the Pistols never reacted, probably not so much for fear of being outclassed but because they did not see the point and didn't need that type of publicity anymore.
As for some of the other stuff circulated at the time (Peter Frampton allegedly threatening to leave A&M Records if they took on the Pistols etc), I wouldn't be surprised if Malcolm McLaren invented all that. Jimmy Page and Robert Plant saw the Pistols and liked what they saw. Rory Gallagher saw the Pistols at a US West Coast gig and was so impressed with their energy that he reconfigurated his band in the aftermath, out went the keyboard player Lou Martin and the nimble drummer, Gallager immediately scrapped the album he was recording at the time which should have broken the US market for him (released as "Notes from San Francisco" decades later), reverted to trio form and the new drummer (Hugh Mckenna from SAHB) was a lot less jazzy than Rod De'Ath, his predecessor.
So the Pistols are even to blame for the break-up of the best Rory Gallagher Band line-up, darn!!! :mrgreen:
i don't buy that no matter what all your fanzines say. :P
Quote from: uwe on September 26, 2013, 03:50:50 AM
That's not punk either, Dave, just urban rock'n'roll.
By Dave's standards, Uwe, I guess that's pretty "out there"... ;D
Punk era... sort of mostly passed me by... stuck by the metal and jeans and tee's and long hair... Motorhead was spawned out of this era, and Tom Petty was (sort of) called new-wave until they heard him... some of the first Pistols LP contains some stunning material - 40/40 hindsight...
Buy what? The Rory Gallagher episode? It's in his brother's Donal booklet notes to the "Notes from San Francisco" release of the scrapped album. Gallagher had pressure from Chrysalis (his label) to finally crack the US where he was a live draw but not much else. They wanted better, more commercial production of his albums, hence the advent of Roger Glover as an outside producer who produced Calling Card (which I rate as the most mature album from that Gallagher period, but Rory obviously had qualms about the more polished sound Roger created). Following Calling Card, Chrysalis wanted to do even better and "treat" Rory with an American name producer: Elliot Mazer (Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, The Band). He honed Rory's sound even more, but the results (larger arrangements) unsettled the Irishman. Listening to the production today, it sure isn't Bullfrog Blues full onslaught (and the emphasis is more on the harmonica and the piano than anything else), but hardly sterile or subdued either, maybe that album would have been successful in the US after all had he released it at the time, musically I thought his reverting to a three piece as a step backward at the time, he lost musical color when he booted Martin and De'Ath (don't be fooled by the Calling Card cover, it's from the later San Francisco sessions and cropped up as a bonus track on a Calling Card remaster):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_flsyzIBVN0
Now, does the fact that Rory Gallagher liked the Pistols and that their act made him think about his own desecrate the coolness of the Pistols or taint Gallagher's blues legacy in your eyes? ???
Don't be so cryptic, Nofi. We all do want to understand you!
On second thought: Rory Gallagher's brother and longtime manager must have reasons to invent something like that. :-X
(http://donegalgathering.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/a-proud-donal-gallagher-at-his-brothers-rory-gallagher-bronze-statue-that-was-unveiled-in-ballyshannon-in-june-2010.jpg)
The Ramones were so hyped in the NYC rock press that I thought "I HAVE to buy their album when it comes out." I remember plunking down a fair chunk of my meager gas-pumping earnings and heading home to my turntable - only to feel that I had been fleeced. I remember feeling that either it was some kind of joke or that something positively awful had happened to music. I found some of the subsequent albums more appealing, but that first record remains as a somewhat traumatic musical event in my life.
I liked the Pistols, but still feel that THESE guys were the "real" punks (well, after GG Allin :puke:):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Tb3DT-mjA
I was disappointed by Never Mind the Bollocks (the production sounded teenybopperish to me), but the Ramones debut left a lasting impression, perhaps because I preferred Joey's vocals (and hypher-NYC accent) over Johnny's (Rotten) cockney sneer. I've read that Joey thought that the demos to the debut were much better and I've heard those too, but I prefer the official debut still. Johnny Ramone's guitar sounded like nothing else I had heard before.
Even their later and last stuff draws a smile to my face to this day. Heck, I've even bought the posthumous Joey solo albums. Call me crazy but I always felt that there was a warmth to Joey's voice which Lydon totally lacked (but then that is not what the Pistols or PIL were about, granted).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCC5sTdef5U
And Joey liked Deep Purple, so there! :mrgreen:
This is a classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTqz8VbWFiw
And this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otd3OX-vIAA
I like what Jello did with Al Jorgenson too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6F-B6V3b2Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c54O9KpDF7s
Oh, don't be bringin' Hypo Luxa into it :P
Granted he's more industrial than punk but how can you not love this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7bqDDmA7cw&list=PL65798A28883222B0
As a prime example of a band that is fashion/lifestyle first and music second that seems to be a sacred cow for the current 'punk kids' is Social Distortion. Their music is bland and derivative and what few gems exist are covers ("Ring of Fire") or ripoffs of other songs ("Story of My Life"/"The Cowboy Song"), but you will be hard-pressed to find another band with such a fervent group of dedicated fans. I saw them on Axis TV's Guitar Center Concert Series today and the interview with Mike Ness confirmed everything I had always suspected about him in a very bad way. The guitar players in my old band worshipped them (we covered a bunch of their songs) and I tried to like Social D, but I just can't get past the repetition and pose factor. It really turns me off to see a band celebrate their music as a programmed soundtrack to their "lifestyle." Maybe there just too many posers in this world or maybe I'm just too hardcore: I ain't changing; screw the rest of 'em.
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...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=089SH63fiSw
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 (http://www.amazon.com/Our-Band-Could-Your-Life/dp/0316787531/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380249149&sr=8-1&keywords=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.
Quote from: uwe on September 25, 2013, 07:33:50 PM
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.
(http://www.hootpage.com/dboonsticker.gif)
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.
Quote from: OldManC on September 26, 2013, 09:05:25 PM
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS-lbCFFZk4
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MACVaU-2whQ
as well as a tenure with boring old fart heavy band "supergroup" Detective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvD9sFzXf4
not to mention those prototype punks of Power Station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kupMnltNcf8
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUSP5LZAuQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EysiOZvPMqE
Or one of Dr Feelgood for that matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jmIYyskDM8
I hope that is garage enough for everyone. :mrgreen:
Quote from: uwe on September 27, 2013, 05:12:38 AM
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.
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." :mrgreen:). 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" :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:, 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4_YoeCpF74
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" :rolleyes: - 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.
Quote from: 4stringer77 on September 26, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
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).
Quote from: uwe on September 27, 2013, 05:12:38 AM
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.
Quote from: uwe on September 27, 2013, 05:12:38 AM
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)
Quote from: slinkp on September 26, 2013, 09:15:16 PM
(http://www.hootpage.com/dboonsticker.gif)
!!!!! (exactly)
Quote from: uwe on September 27, 2013, 05:12:38 AM
...
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.
Quote from: slinkp on September 26, 2013, 09:15:16 PM
(http://www.hootpage.com/dboonsticker.gif)
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!
Quote from: Dave W on September 27, 2013, 02:57:16 PM
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! :mrgreen:
Quote from: Granny Gremlin on September 27, 2013, 01:07:52 PM
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? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6zqYSezqwo
QuoteUm, 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.)
QuoteAs 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.
Quote from: fur85 on September 27, 2013, 06:11:33 AM
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. ;D
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.
When Motorhead by Motorhead was released by Chiswick in '77 it was classed as "punk" by quite a few... fitted the same rough-and-ready nature of quite a few of them though...
I remember reading a article on the very early punk scene and there were a couple of pages worth of AC/DC being an up and coming punk band? Go figure.
Although I never saw the issue, I read that an issue of Creem about 1970 had the first mention of a band playing "punk rock music." The band was ? and the Mysterians.
Quote from: Lightyear on September 29, 2013, 06:47:54 PM
I remember reading a article on the very early punk scene and there were a couple of pages worth of AC/DC being an up and coming punk band? Go figure.
You are not hallucinating, early AC/DC were lumped into the punk rock cart in Germany too until it dawned on someone that they were very possibly just hard rock. But I can understand where these people were coming from, I saw AC/DC first in 1976 opening for Rainbow and while Rainbow was still all flamboyant 70ies rock stardom, black satin loon pants and all, Angus' schoolboy uniform and Bon Scott's rogue roadie look were something else. AC/DC had no grandeur to their music, it was very stripped down and snappy (similar to Dr Feelgood who also found grace with a punk audience), I believe they would have survived at any punk rock festival before their image was that of an established hard rock act. I remember one mag calling them "a punk version of Status Quo". And sometime later an article that they were way too apolitical to be classed as punk while another mag called them "punk for working class youths with a job". They only received the hard rock badge for good around "Got Live if You Want It".
Motörhead, perhaps because of their (what you would today call) indie label roots or because of Lemmy's Hawkwind pedigree (as Hawkwind were always regarded as a true people's band with all their free concerts) -, were always well-received by punks and the punk-adoring press, they were the one long haired English band (of course there were the Ramones as well, but they were Americans) that actually benefitted from the Summer of Punk and what followed it. Maybe wearing gun belts helped too.
Quote from: CAR-54 on September 29, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
When Motorhead by Motorhead was released by Chiswick in '77 it was classed as "punk" by quite a few... fitted the same rough-and-ready nature of quite a few of them though...
Quote from: Lightyear on September 29, 2013, 06:47:54 PM
I remember reading a article on the very early punk scene and there were a couple of pages worth of AC/DC being an up and coming punk band? Go figure.
Just further examples of how far up their asses music journos have/had their heads. Oh, they wear motorcycle jackets just like the Ramones/the core audience in their home town is "Bikies" (I still find the Aussie version of the word "biker" to be hilariously apt; as menacing as they are, and as often as they seem to be busted for weapons possession due to the stockpiles in their basements, they don't ever seem to ever pull them out or do much to anyone aside from getting into fights in the line for AC/DC concerts and then busted when the cop that breaks it up searches them and finds that their holding a significant quantity of meth - true story, I was there) - MUST be punks.
... anyway, the whole genre pigeonhole thing is very bullshit to me anyhow. It's only purpose seems to be to give hipster music nerds something to argue about with each other and lazy journos an easy catchphrase.
I thought punk was dead in 1977?
That said, I've got tickets to see Television in a few weeks.
Had an interview with CJ Ramone last night. He was ranting about bands like Mumford & Sons and kids not listening to punk anymore. But he was quite positive about the state and quality of a lot of young bands supporting him during the tour.
I think it's telling that when they talk about the 'last Ramone remaining alive" they don't mention CJ, but rather Tommy (nor do they, for that matter mention "Elvis Ramone" aka Clem Burke the drummer from Blondie, who was, granted , only in the band for, like, 2 minutes on account of being too jazzy.... and Ritchie, which I don't see a reason for at all.).
Mark, I am so jealous. I keep on missing them every time they're out my way since forever (always out of town or something). Any idea about the lineup?
Marky isn't dead yet.
Don't forget about Marky Ramone.
Thanks for the back up ;)
Ha! I was listening to my Dust LP's just the other day.
Quote from: Chris P. on October 02, 2013, 01:26:44 AM
Had an interview with CJ Ramone last night. He was ranting about bands like Mumford & Sons and kids not listening to punk anymore. But he was quite positive about the state and quality of a lot of young bands supporting him during the tour.
Mumford & Sons is going on hiatus. Too bad, because that implies they might be back someday. ;D
Quote from: 4stringer77 on October 02, 2013, 11:03:22 AM
Marky isn't dead yet.
Right - I knew I was missing a few drummers in there.
Quote from: Dave W on October 02, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Mumford & Sons is going on hiatus. Too bad, because that implies they might be back someday. ;D
:rimshot:
Good one Dave!!
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7818762240/hDEB37341/)