Explaining the Punk Rock Phenomenon

Question:

And believe it or not Austin Texas had a "punk" scene in the 70’s also! "look out Honey cause’ I’m usin’ technology!" -Search & Destroy by Iggy Pop

Response:

I do not consider Green day to be punk. Punk is a style of music but it is also a lifestyle. Here is a list of "Popular" punk bands today that any fan of punk will know. NOFX BAD RELIGION DROPKICK MURPHYS RANCID BOUNCING SOULS you guys should know that there are also different categories of punk. Not all punk sounds the same, in the same way rock and metal doesnt sound the same. Theres SKa/punk, hardcore/punk, pop-punk, classic punk, street-punk/Oi! and alternative punk. cheers, Tommy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry but you’re wrong. Punk may have been one thing at one time and obviously mean’t a lot to you but it is a style of music now. Hell Columbia House probably has a punk section by now! People need words to describe styles of music and that is one of them. No one’s come up with any new words since rap! Some current punk bands: Rancid Green Day Melvins — Findlay Sonic Revival Homepage + MP3 page www.mp3.com/sonicrevival www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Disco/8856/ Punk is Not dead! You know, I remember being really down in 1979 because punk WAS dead. The Pistols had disbanded, as had Television. Talking Heads were doing something QUITE different and Blondie? Well… I always had the hots for Debbie Harry. The REAL proof that punk was dead was the Time magazine cover story and the Quincy episode where PUNK KILLS! That’s like saying "if it wasn’t recorded at Sun Studios in Memphis in the early ’50s…", or "If it wasn’t played by Alan Freed on his radio show in Cleveland in the ’50s…" then "…it’s not rock & roll." Those were some of the origins, but the style has expanded beyond that to such an extent that if you tried saying that, You’d have a Billion people worldwide telling you to Fuck off. But what IS the punk style? Most of the bands that were CALLED punk didn’t sound anything LIKE each other. Play a tracks from Television, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Blondie, Talking Heads, X, Fear and maybe even the Stranglers back-to-back, and you won’t hear one style. Even Elvis Costello and the Jam were considered punk! Yet they were ALL punk. In fact, the only thing they all shared was that they were all part of a SCENE, a specific context at a specific time. That SCENE was punk. When the scene began to break up in 1979 with the shift of Britain’s musical locus to Manchester and Factory Records, with the move to major labels by some of the New York bands, punk ended. Sure, there are bands that try to emulate what they see as punk’s seminal style. In the 1980s it was called hardcore and in the 1990s it was called grunge. But the only bands that CALL temselves punk today are bands that are trying to evoke a nostalgia for the 70s. Nostalgia sucks. Grow up. Slavishly following the fashions, both musical and in terms of clothing, set in a particular scene 20 years ago is a COMPLETE repudiation of what that scene was all about. In fact, Those things that you mentioned aren’t even the first mention of Punk rock. That happened all over the place as "garage rock" from ‘64-’68 as documented by the great "Nuggets" collection and later boxed set. Those were the original "punk rockers" because they were just "A few neighborhood punks" who got together and played, regardless of technique, originality, or whatever. Yeah, yeah. It was great music. Some of it was even pretty well played. [I'm a big fan of the Seeds and the Haunted]. But the "punk" of the 60s was extraordinarily un-influential [it emerged as a response to the British invasion, but never rose above it] in its time, and got VERY limited airplay. In fact, with the exception of MC5 and the Stooges, MOST of that music had been completely ignored almost from its initial release UNTIL the punk of the 70s, when some 70s punks said "Hell, these guys sort’ve sound like us…" If you want to get more indicative of the style, those places you mentioned STILL weren’t the first epicenters of what became the "punk Sound." That was Detroit, Where the MC5 and The Stooges started the stylings that were later imitated by the Ramones, who then passed it on to the Sex Pistols, and so forth. And even they got it from the aforementioned Garage Groups. But there IS no "punk sound" and there never was. Not even the bands that hung out with each other in New York and played CBGB’s even SOUNDED much alike. It was style. It was attitude. It was a moment in time. It was a scene. If you want to talk about that particular era, you’re STILL full of shit. San Francisco was, at that time, enjoying an ENORMOUS explosion of Punk bands, as documented by local Fanzines such as "Seek & Destroy." In the recent reprints of the original editions, there is a very well written intro by Jello Biafra (of Dead Kennedys infamy) about just what the original punk scene was like in SF. Hell, the first edition of S&D has a list of ALL the punk bands and their home cities at that time, as known by the editors of S&D. My conclusion: there’s a LOT more punks out there than you can account for, even back then. The SF scene didn’t take off untill the 1980s. By then, LA punk had spread through California and become Hardcore — which was, BTW a clearly identifiable, definable style, UNLIKE punk. Sure, there were a few bands outside of the main punk centres that fall into the fringes of the scene — Teenage Head and the Vibrators leap to mind — but that’s just the fuzzy stuff at the edge of the screen. To paraphrase Biafra, Punk is an attitude, not just a musical style. Yeah… well it wasn’t much of a style at that. But I agree about attitude. Back then you had bands like ELO proposing to play at numerous concerts (thus making the money of playing at numerous concerts) at once using holograms. Original punks saw how far removed the excesses of the ’70s were from the spirit and admittedly great music of the late’60s, when it was about the music, period. So what they did was make music that was completely opposed to the music of the time, both in style and form. Where the commercial songs were getting longer (4-5+ minutes each) and jammed out, punk was short, focused, and ended definitely in under 3 minutes. Where Commercial rock had people dressed in sequins and $800 boots, Punk had the people in what they wore everyday-jeans, t-shirts, sneakers-as well as what was considered completely out of style, like pork pie hats, skinny cut-off ties, suits, etc that could all be gotten from goodwill for less than $20. And if punk is indeeed an attitude, as per Mr. Jello, then it cannot be limited to a given age group or era, as anyone with that attitude of "I hate everything about the crap they’re passing off as ‘music,’ so I’m gonna make my own" is automatically a punk, no matter if they’re 8, 80, rich, poor, black, white, male, female, or a part of any other category you wish to name. Umm… forgive me, but all of this sounds like the content of some superficial, try-to-make-it-all-fit MTV special. If you weren’t listening to music then; if you weren’t trying to be part of the scene; if you weren’t there, don’t spout some veejay nonsense at me. There was no thought or design behind punk. It just sort of happened. The music resonated with young people everywhere because the promises of the 60s had turned out to be BS, because we had fewer opportunities than our older brothers and sisters, because we were adolescents with acne, because we couldn’t get into discos and because evertything on TV sucked. A bunch of bands were trying different things, as bands are always doing, but it resonated with a ready, disaffected audience and took off. Don’t try to dress it up with musicological twittering. It was a scene we tried to live in, a fashion statement we adopted and a product that w bought. It was fun. I have some fond memories of the time. I still listen to the music. But it wasn’t a revolution. Unlike what you leaked, new wave and punk were NOT separated at the beginning, according to Biafra. It was only later, as "punk" became defined as more physical, crude, and brutish, that New Wave was considered to be outside of punk. In the beginning, anyone playing songs that were in contrast to what was on the radio then was considered a punk, even those who played clean and clicky stuff. Thus, both Blondie and the Cars were "punk," too. Actually, the term "New Wave" came into use [in music terms] around 1979, to describe what many erstwhile punk acts were doing now that they had major label deals, and to describe the kind of thing that Factory Records was doing. I remember seeing Ian Curtis eulogized in the music press [NME? Melody Maker? Snif'n Glue? I dunno] as a "New Wave messiah." He died in 1979, so the term was obviously current at the time. So Screw you and your pretty little definition of punk. It doesn’t work. Rock isn’t the same as it was back in the ’50s, Punk isn’t the same as it was back in the ’70s. Times change, the music changes, but the style lives on. The only way a style can die is if it NEVER influences anybody anymore. That certainly hasn’t happened with punk. Deal with it. Look, you can believe what you want. Just as there are a whole lot of would-be hippes today who want to believe the 60s are still alive, there are a lot of kids who want to believe it’s still 1977. I don’t have a

Response:

Punk is Not dead! You know, I remember being really down in 1979 because punk WAS dead. The Pistols had disbanded, as had Television. Talking Heads were doing something QUITE different and Blondie? Well… I always had the hots for Debbie Harry. The REAL proof that punk was dead was the Time magazine cover story and the Quincy episode where PUNK KILLS! MF

Thanks Matt for putting it into words! Why can’t people today accept that punk ENDED 20 SOMETHING YEARS AGO, OK???? Don’t call what is on MTV or whatever today punk, ’cause it’s not. If you weren’t there in the first place, don’t feel bad, just do something NEW! Why must people try to adopt a scene that, like Matt said, if you weren’t there it’s impossible. The culture that punk existed in and contrasted with is also long gone. It makes no sense out of context. Kevin

Response:

Sorry but you’re wrong. Punk may have been one thing at one time and obviously mean’t a lot to you but it is a style of music now. Hell Columbia House probably has a punk section by now! People need words to describe styles of music and that is one of them. No one’s come up with any new words since rap! Some current punk bands: Rancid Green Day Melvins — Findlay Sonic Revival Homepage + MP3 page www.mp3.com/sonicrevival www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Disco/8856/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Punk is Not dead! You know, I remember being really down in 1979 because punk WAS dead. The Pistols had disbanded, as had Television. Talking Heads were doing something QUITE different and Blondie? Well… I always had the hots for Debbie Harry. The REAL proof that punk was dead was the Time magazine cover story and the Quincy episode where PUNK KILLS! That’s like saying "if it wasn’t recorded at Sun Studios in Memphis in the early ’50s…", or "If it wasn’t played by Alan Freed on his radio show in Cleveland in the ’50s…" then "…it’s not rock & roll." Those were some of the origins, but the style has expanded beyond that to such an extent that if you tried saying that, You’d have a Billion people worldwide telling you to Fuck off. But what IS the punk style? Most of the bands that were CALLED punk didn’t sound anything LIKE each other. Play a tracks from Television, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Blondie, Talking Heads, X, Fear and maybe even the Stranglers back-to-back, and you won’t hear one style. Even Elvis Costello and the Jam were considered punk! Yet they were ALL punk. In fact, the only thing they all shared was that they were all part of a SCENE, a specific context at a specific time. That SCENE was punk. When the scene began to break up in 1979 with the shift of Britain’s musical locus to Manchester and Factory Records, with the move to major labels by some of the New York bands, punk ended. Sure, there are bands that try to emulate what they see as punk’s seminal style. In the 1980s it was called hardcore and in the 1990s it was called grunge. But the only bands that CALL temselves punk today are bands that are trying to evoke a nostalgia for the 70s. Nostalgia sucks. Grow up. Slavishly following the fashions, both musical and in terms of clothing, set in a particular scene 20 years ago is a COMPLETE repudiation of what that scene was all about. In fact, Those things that you mentioned aren’t even the first mention of Punk rock. That happened all over the place as "garage rock" from ‘64-’68 as documented by the great "Nuggets" collection and later boxed set. Those were the original "punk rockers" because they were just "A few neighborhood punks" who got together and played, regardless of technique, originality, or whatever. Yeah, yeah. It was great music. Some of it was even pretty well played. [I'm a big fan of the Seeds and the Haunted]. But the "punk" of the 60s was extraordinarily un-influential [it emerged as a response to the British invasion, but never rose above it] in its time, and got VERY limited airplay. In fact, with the exception of MC5 and the Stooges, MOST of that music had been completely ignored almost from its initial release UNTIL the punk of the 70s, when some 70s punks said "Hell, these guys sort’ve sound like us…" If you want to get more indicative of the style, those places you mentioned STILL weren’t the first epicenters of what became the "punk Sound." That was Detroit, Where the MC5 and The Stooges started the stylings that were later imitated by the Ramones, who then passed it on to the Sex Pistols, and so forth. And even they got it from the aforementioned Garage Groups. But there IS no "punk sound" and there never was. Not even the bands that hung out with each other in New York and played CBGB’s even SOUNDED much alike. It was style. It was attitude. It was a moment in time. It was a scene. If you want to talk about that particular era, you’re STILL full of shit. San Francisco was, at that time, enjoying an ENORMOUS explosion of Punk bands, as documented by local Fanzines such as "Seek & Destroy." In the recent reprints of the original editions, there is a very well written intro by Jello Biafra (of Dead Kennedys infamy) about just what the original punk scene was like in SF. Hell, the first edition of S&D has a list of ALL the punk bands and their home cities at that time, as known by the editors of S&D. My conclusion: there’s a LOT more punks out there than you can account for, even back then. The SF scene didn’t take off untill the 1980s. By then, LA punk had spread through California and become Hardcore — which was, BTW a clearly identifiable, definable style, UNLIKE punk. Sure, there were a few bands outside of the main punk centres that fall into the fringes of the scene — Teenage Head and the Vibrators leap to mind — but that’s just the fuzzy stuff at the edge of the screen. To paraphrase Biafra, Punk is an attitude, not just a musical style. Yeah… well it wasn’t much of a style at that. But I agree about attitude. Back then you had bands like ELO proposing to play at numerous concerts (thus making the money of playing at numerous concerts) at once using holograms. Original punks saw how far removed the excesses of the ’70s were from the spirit and admittedly great music of the late’60s, when it was about the music, period. So what they did was make music that was completely opposed to the music of the time, both in style and form. Where the commercial songs were getting longer (4-5+ minutes each) and jammed out, punk was short, focused, and ended definitely in under 3 minutes. Where Commercial rock had people dressed in sequins and $800 boots, Punk had the people in what they wore everyday-jeans, t-shirts, sneakers-as well as what was considered completely out of style, like pork pie hats, skinny cut-off ties, suits, etc that could all be gotten from goodwill for less than $20. And if punk is indeeed an attitude, as per Mr. Jello, then it cannot be limited to a given age group or era, as anyone with that attitude of "I hate everything about the crap they’re passing off as ‘music,’ so I’m gonna make my own" is automatically a punk, no matter if they’re 8, 80, rich, poor, black, white, male, female, or a part of any other category you wish to name. Umm… forgive me, but all of this sounds like the content of some superficial, try-to-make-it-all-fit MTV special. If you weren’t listening to music then; if you weren’t trying to be part of the scene; if you weren’t there, don’t spout some veejay nonsense at me. There was no thought or design behind punk. It just sort of happened. The music resonated with young people everywhere because the promises of the 60s had turned out to be BS, because we had fewer opportunities than our older brothers and sisters, because we were adolescents with acne, because we couldn’t get into discos and because evertything on TV sucked. A bunch of bands were trying different things, as bands are always doing, but it resonated with a ready, disaffected audience and took off. Don’t try to dress it up with musicological twittering. It was a scene we tried to live in, a fashion statement we adopted and a product that w bought. It was fun. I have some fond memories of the time. I still listen to the music. But it wasn’t a revolution. Unlike what you leaked, new wave and punk were NOT separated at the beginning, according to Biafra. It was only later, as "punk" became defined as more physical, crude, and brutish, that New Wave was considered to be outside of punk. In the beginning, anyone playing songs that were in contrast to what was on the radio then was considered a punk, even those who played clean and clicky stuff. Thus, both Blondie and the Cars were "punk," too. Actually, the term "New Wave" came into use [in music terms] around 1979, to describe what many erstwhile punk acts were doing now that they had major label deals, and to describe the kind of thing that Factory Records was doing. I remember seeing Ian Curtis eulogized in the music press [NME? Melody Maker? Snif'n Glue? I dunno] as a "New Wave messiah." He died in 1979, so the term was obviously current at the time. So Screw you and your pretty little definition of punk. It doesn’t work. Rock isn’t the same as it was back in the ’50s, Punk isn’t the same as it was back in the ’70s. Times change, the music changes, but the style lives on. The only way a style can die is if it NEVER influences anybody anymore. That certainly hasn’t happened with punk. Deal with it. Look, you can believe what you want. Just as there are a whole lot of would-be hippes today who want to believe the 60s are still alive, there are a lot of kids who want to believe it’s still 1977. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t OWN the word "punk." I even take a certain amount of pleasure in the fact that the scene is being romanticized and nostalgicized despite the fact that we all thought we were so anti- romanticism and anti-nostalgia. I even think it’s funny that there are people who think it was culturally important, even though it was just pop music. So call whatever you want punk. Try to define a style and a genre. It really doesn’t bother me. After all, it doesn’t matter. I was there. I know what it was. And next time, Do a little survey of the genre and its changes before you leak your info on us all. That way you don’t look like a complete moron

Response:

Nostalgia sucks. Grow up. Slavishly following the fashions, both musical and in terms of clothing, set in a particular scene 20 years ago is a COMPLETE repudiation of what that scene was all about.

Mmmm……there’s something sad about seeing people walking around London today wearing studded leather jackets with the names of "Punk" bands on the back, bondage trousers and green mohicans. Hey – I used to be one of them. But that was the best part of 20 years ago.

Response:

Whenever I want to bother my punk purist friend I tell him that Green Day is the best punk band ever. I was always get a reaction! — Findlay Sonic Revival Homepage + MP3 page www.mp3.com/sonicrevival www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Disco/8856/

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : More to the point, Punk IS retro. : It was a style of music played by largely untrained and unsigned musicians : in New York, Los Angeles, London, Manchester and Birmingham between 1975 : and 1979. As it acheived some commercial success, its practionioners either : adopted new syles [The Clash, Talking Heads, Blondie] or disbanded [Sex : Pistols, Television]. It was followed by imitators who created the New Wave : and post-Punk styles]. : If it wasn’t played or recorded in New York, Los Angeles, London, : Manchester and Birmingham between 1975 and 1979, then it isn’t punk. It’s : either a different style [hardcore, skatecore, etc.] or Punk revival. : Most of what passes for punk today is too complex, too well produced, too : musical to have been recognizable as punk in the late-70s. : And my opinion is that the interest that a lot of young people have in punk : today is really no different than their peers’ interests in 60s hippie : music, folk, glam and whatever. It’s nostalgia for a time that they don’t : remember. HELLLL NO! Punk is Not dead! That’s like saying "if it wasn’t recorded at Sun Studios in Memphis in the early ’50s…", or "If it wasn’t played by Alan Freed on his radio show in Cleveland in the ’50s…" then "…it’s not rock & roll." Those were some of the origins, but the style has expanded beyond that to such an extent that if you tried saying that, You’d have a Billion people worldwide telling you to Fuck off. In fact, Those things that you mentioned aren’t even the first mention of Punk rock. That happened all over the place as "garage rock" from ‘64-’68 as documented by the great "Nuggets" collection and later boxed set. Those were the original "punk rockers" because they were just "A few neighborhood punks" who got together and played, regardless of technique, originality, or whatever. If you want to get more indicative of the style, those places you mentioned STILL weren’t the first epicenters of what became the "punk Sound." That was Detroit, Where the MC5 and The Stooges started the stylings that were later imitated by the Ramones, who then passed it on to the Sex Pistols, and so forth. And even they got it from the aforementioned Garage Groups. If you want to talk about that particular era, you’re STILL full of shit. San Francisco was, at that time, enjoying an ENORMOUS explosion of Punk bands, as documented by local Fanzines such as "Seek & Destroy." In the recent reprints of the original editions, there is a very well written intro by Jello Biafra (of Dead Kennedys infamy) about just what the original punk scene was like in SF. Hell, the first edition of S&D has a list of ALL the punk bands and their home cities at that time, as known by the editors of S&D. My conclusion: there’s a LOT more punks out there than you can account for, even back then. To paraphrase Biafra, Punk is an attitude, not just a musical style. Back then you had bands like ELO proposing to play at numerous concerts (thus making the money of playing at numerous concerts) at once using holograms. Original punks saw how far removed the excesses of the ’70s were from the spirit and admittedly great music of the late’60s, when it was about the music, period. So what they did was make music that was completely opposed to the music of the time, both in style and form. Where the commercial songs were getting longer (4-5+ minutes each) and jammed out, punk was short, focused, and ended definitely in under 3 minutes. Where Commercial rock had people dressed in sequins and $800 boots, Punk had the people in what they wore everyday-jeans, t-shirts, sneakers-as well as what was considered completely out of style, like pork pie hats, skinny cut-off ties, suits, etc that could all be gotten from goodwill for less than $20. And if punk is indeeed an attitude, as per Mr. Jello, then it cannot be limited to a given age group or era, as anyone with that attitude of "I hate everything about the crap they’re passing off as ‘music,’ so I’m gonna make my own" is automatically a punk, no matter if they’re 8, 80, rich, poor, black, white, male, female, or a part of any other category you wish to name. Unlike what you leaked, new wave and punk were NOT separated at the beginning, according to Biafra. It was only later, as "punk" became defined as more physical, crude, and brutish, that New Wave was considered to be outside of punk. In the beginning, anyone playing songs that were in contrast to what was on the radio then was considered a punk, even those who played clean and clicky stuff. Thus, both Blondie and the Cars were "punk," too. So what about Black Flag? They’re Punk, too. Not only did they start in the (according to your lame-assed definition) requisite area and era (LA, 76-77), but they transcend genres, essentially creating what is now known as hardcore. But if THEY count, and they played hardcore, then surely other, similar bands must as well. And what about those bands that were influenced by them to an extent that they started playing the same music while the Flag was still around (BF broke up in ‘87 or so if you didn’t know)? Well then, they muyst be punks too. And then your neat little drivel goes all to hell. If you want to count only members, Pat Smear, an original member of the LA Punk band, the Germs, became a member of Nirvana. He played with them on "In Utero" and the subsequent tour. All of a sudden, Nirvana (gasp!) is defined as punk, and all the bands like them (early-era alternative) must be punk too, including Soundgarden, the Pixies, The Melvins, Hole, Mudhoney, and innumerable others, some of which are still around today. So Screw you and your pretty little definition of punk. It doesn’t work. Rock isn’t the same as it was back in the ’50s, Punk isn’t the same as it was back in the ’70s. Times change, the music changes, but the style lives on. The only way a style can die is if it NEVER influences anybody anymore. That certainly hasn’t happened with punk. Deal with it. And next time, Do a little survey of the genre and its changes before you leak your info on us all. That way you don’t look like a complete moron when someone who actually knows what they’re talking about gives names, places, dates, sources, bands, and generally puts the ignorant in their place to be laughed at by all. And if you don’t know, shut up and defer to the people who do. After all, "Even a fool is considered wise when he doesn’t open his mouth." — "Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -Winston Churchill

Response:

-co1.aol.com: More to the point, Punk IS retro. I agree that the theory of punk is retro, but there has been an ongoing, everchanging underground "punk" scene way after the Sex Pistols broke up. In many cases, the music has evolved from the three chord class into much more complex music. Bands like All, Dag Nasty and so forth. I guess you could argue that since these bands don’t sound like the original "punk" bands, then they aren’t punk. But what is the definition of punk? It’s just a term that some guy in the media made up to describe extreme rock and roll.

True enough. I remember sitting around with my friends, dicussing the difference between "punk" and "new wave" in 1979. I mean, were Joy Division "new wave?" Therefore, punk was going on long before there was a title for the genre. Bands like the Stooges and the MC5 fit the bill. And is punk just about making political statements against the establishment and being offensive? Then how would you explain the Ramones? They really didn’t have much of a statement. They were considered punk because of thier three-chord aggressive sound.

And not all "punk" even sounded much like the Ramones. Television — considered a punk mainstay — sounded NOTHING like the Romones, or the Buzzcocks. The Clash’s music, though political, was often highly inventive and melodic and often had more in common with ska and reggae. MC5, and the Seeds and the Stooges all sounded like they could have come out of New York in 1976… but they didn’t. So what’s punk? The bottom line is that, for "punk" to have ANY meaning at all [Hell, Eddie Cochran was punk in his time], it has to be associated with a specific cultural context and time. Consequently, anything that DOES call itself punk today is a retro statement. Therefore breaking the molds of the bands before them by taking a new approach to pop music.

In that case, the Beatles are punk… the Rolling Stones are punk… David Bowie and T-Rex are punk… By broadening the definition like that, you make it meaningless. I think that bands like the Descendents and All can wedge thier way into the punk definition even though thier sound is not akin to "classic" punk.

But what’s a classic punk sound? Siouxie and the Banshees? Blondie? Television? The Damned? Talking Heads? They all sound different. MF

Response:

Punk is Not dead!

You know, I remember being really down in 1979 because punk WAS dead. The Pistols had disbanded, as had Television. Talking Heads were doing something QUITE different and Blondie? Well… I always had the hots for Debbie Harry. The REAL proof that punk was dead was the Time magazine cover story and the Quincy episode where PUNK KILLS! That’s like saying "if it wasn’t recorded at Sun Studios in Memphis in the early ’50s…", or "If it wasn’t played by Alan Freed on his radio show in Cleveland in the ’50s…" then "…it’s not rock & roll." Those were some of the origins, but the style has expanded beyond that to such an extent that if you tried saying that, You’d have a Billion people worldwide telling you to Fuck off.

But what IS the punk style? Most of the bands that were CALLED punk didn’t sound anything LIKE each other. Play a tracks from Television, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Blondie, Talking Heads, X, Fear and maybe even the Stranglers back-to-back, and you won’t hear one style. Even Elvis Costello and the Jam were considered punk! Yet they were ALL punk. In fact, the only thing they all shared was that they were all part of a SCENE, a specific context at a specific time. That SCENE was punk. When the scene began to break up in 1979 with the shift of Britain’s musical locus to Manchester and Factory Records, with the move to major labels by some of the New York bands, punk ended. Sure, there are bands that try to emulate what they see as punk’s seminal style. In the 1980s it was called hardcore and in the 1990s it was called grunge. But the only bands that CALL temselves punk today are bands that are trying to evoke a nostalgia for the 70s. Nostalgia sucks. Grow up. Slavishly following the fashions, both musical and in terms of clothing, set in a particular scene 20 years ago is a COMPLETE repudiation of what that scene was all about. In fact, Those things that you mentioned aren’t even the first mention of Punk rock. That happened all over the place as "garage rock" from ‘64-’68 as documented by the great "Nuggets" collection and later boxed set. Those were the original "punk rockers" because they were just "A few neighborhood punks" who got together and played, regardless of technique, originality, or whatever.

Yeah, yeah. It was great music. Some of it was even pretty well played. [I'm a big fan of the Seeds and the Haunted]. But the "punk" of the 60s was extraordinarily un-influential [it emerged as a response to the British invasion, but never rose above it] in its time, and got VERY limited airplay. In fact, with the exception of MC5 and the Stooges, MOST of that music had been completely ignored almost from its initial release UNTIL the punk of the 70s, when some 70s punks said "Hell, these guys sort’ve sound like us…" If you want to get more indicative of the style, those places you mentioned STILL weren’t the first epicenters of what became the "punk Sound." That was Detroit, Where the MC5 and The Stooges started the stylings that were later imitated by the Ramones, who then passed it on to the Sex Pistols, and so forth. And even they got it from the aforementioned Garage Groups.

But there IS no "punk sound" and there never was. Not even the bands that hung out with each other in New York and played CBGB’s even SOUNDED much alike. It was style. It was attitude. It was a moment in time. It was a scene. If you want to talk about that particular era, you’re STILL full of shit. San Francisco was, at that time, enjoying an ENORMOUS explosion of Punk bands, as documented by local Fanzines such as "Seek & Destroy." In the recent reprints of the original editions, there is a very well written intro by Jello Biafra (of Dead Kennedys infamy) about just what the original punk scene was like in SF. Hell, the first edition of S&D has a list of ALL the punk bands and their home cities at that time, as known by the editors of S&D. My conclusion: there’s a LOT more punks out there than you can account for, even back then.

The SF scene didn’t take off untill the 1980s. By then, LA punk had spread through California and become Hardcore — which was, BTW a clearly identifiable, definable style, UNLIKE punk. Sure, there were a few bands outside of the main punk centres that fall into the fringes of the scene — Teenage Head and the Vibrators leap to mind — but that’s just the fuzzy stuff at the edge of the screen. To paraphrase Biafra, Punk is an attitude, not just a musical style.

Yeah… well it wasn’t much of a style at that. But I agree about attitude. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Back then you had bands like ELO proposing to play at numerous concerts (thus making the money of playing at numerous concerts) at once using holograms. Original punks saw how far removed the excesses of the ’70s were from the spirit and admittedly great music of the late’60s, when it was about the music, period. So what they did was make music that was completely opposed to the music of the time, both in style and form. Where the commercial songs were getting longer (4-5+ minutes each) and jammed out, punk was short, focused, and ended definitely in under 3 minutes. Where Commercial rock had people dressed in sequins and $800 boots, Punk had the people in what they wore everyday-jeans, t-shirts, sneakers-as well as what was considered completely out of style, like pork pie hats, skinny cut-off ties, suits, etc that could all be gotten from goodwill for less than $20. And if punk is indeeed an attitude, as per Mr. Jello, then it cannot be limited to a given age group or era, as anyone with that attitude of "I hate everything about the crap they’re passing off as ‘music,’ so I’m gonna make my own" is automatically a punk, no matter if they’re 8, 80, rich, poor, black, white, male, female, or a part of any other category you wish to name.

Umm… forgive me, but all of this sounds like the content of some superficial, try-to-make-it-all-fit MTV special. If you weren’t listening to music then; if you weren’t trying to be part of the scene; if you weren’t there, don’t spout some veejay nonsense at me. There was no thought or design behind punk. It just sort of happened. The music resonated with young people everywhere because the promises of the 60s had turned out to be BS, because we had fewer opportunities than our older brothers and sisters, because we were adolescents with acne, because we couldn’t get into discos and because evertything on TV sucked. A bunch of bands were trying different things, as bands are always doing, but it resonated with a ready, disaffected audience and took off. Don’t try to dress it up with musicological twittering. It was a scene we tried to live in, a fashion statement we adopted and a product that w bought. It was fun. I have some fond memories of the time. I still listen to the music. But it wasn’t a revolution. Unlike what you leaked, new wave and punk were NOT separated at the beginning, according to Biafra. It was only later, as "punk" became defined as more physical, crude, and brutish, that New Wave was considered to be outside of punk. In the beginning, anyone playing songs that were in contrast to what was on the radio then was considered a punk, even those who played clean and clicky stuff. Thus, both Blondie and the Cars were "punk," too.

Actually, the term "New Wave" came into use [in music terms] around 1979, to describe what many erstwhile punk acts were doing now that they had major label deals, and to describe the kind of thing that Factory Records was doing. I remember seeing Ian Curtis eulogized in the music press [NME? Melody Maker? Snif'n Glue? I dunno] as a "New Wave messiah." He died in 1979, so the term was obviously current at the time. So Screw you and your pretty little definition of punk. It doesn’t work. Rock isn’t the same as it was back in the ’50s, Punk isn’t the same as it was back in the ’70s. Times change, the music changes, but the style lives on. The only way a style can die is if it NEVER influences anybody anymore. That certainly hasn’t happened with punk. Deal with it.

Look, you can believe what you want. Just as there are a whole lot of would-be hippes today who want to believe the 60s are still alive, there are a lot of kids who want to believe it’s still 1977. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t OWN the word "punk." I even take a certain amount of pleasure in the fact that the scene is being romanticized and nostalgicized despite the fact that we all thought we were so anti- romanticism and anti-nostalgia. I even think it’s funny that there are people who think it was culturally important, even though it was just pop music. So call whatever you want punk. Try to define a style and a genre. It really doesn’t bother me. After all, it doesn’t matter. I was there. I know what it was. And next time, Do a little survey of the genre and its changes before you leak your info on us all. That way you don’t look like a complete moron when someone who actually knows what they’re talking about gives names, places, dates, sources, bands, and generally puts the ignorant in their place to be laughed at by all. And if you don’t know, shut up and defer to the people who do. After all, "Even a fool is considered wise when he doesn’t open his mouth."

I dont know anything about you. But I can tell that you weren’t anywhere NEAR the scene when it was happening. I understand why you’re so nostalgic and protective. MF

Response:

yet still, no credit given to the west coast scene who literally STARTED any type of hardcore movement, go listen to My War by black flag. etc etc

Luis Obispo to be exact. My roommate at the time was heavily into the LA punk stuff, X, Black Flag, Circle Jerks, all those guys. Truly annoyed me with it as well. Played it nonstop all day and night. I worked as a cook in this mexican restaurant not far from this place in SLO called The Armory, it was like a VFA hall or something. Anyway a punk concert was scheduled there, Black Flag headlined, all these other groups too. So the roommate went ballistic and seriously drove me nuts with their grind. We were all set to go to the show but that afternoon i got called in to cook cos some loser called in sick (prolly going to the concert). So i bailed on the roomie, who was extremely disturbed about the entire situation by then. I’m cooking and this gorgeous waittress we had (well I never "had" her anyway) comes back to me and says, "there are these really weird guys out at table 12, i think they are a punk band or something". so i take a look and lo and behold, it is they, the mighty Flaggers themselves. so i went over to them and said, are you guys black flag, they said yeah. I said my roommate wakes me up every morning at 6 AM with "I’m not a Machine" (one of their more, ah, industrial numbers) and they just laughed at me. I said his name is Robert and described him in detail, hairstyle, etc, and told them he would prolly be on the front row, and would they please fuck with him endlessly. Which they apparently did. Dived on him, gave him the mike, spit all over him, pulled him up on the stage and then threw him off…even said over the PA, "we hear this guy Rob is a fag", which blew his mind, and i laughed when I heard this….. i never told him about meeting them. he said it was the most significant event of his life. I still think Black Flag sucked. howldog

Response:

: More to the point, Punk IS retro. : It was a style of music played by largely untrained and unsigned musicians : in New York, Los Angeles, London, Manchester and Birmingham between 1975 : and 1979. As it acheived some commercial success, its practionioners either : adopted new syles [The Clash, Talking Heads, Blondie] or disbanded [Sex : Pistols, Television]. It was followed by imitators who created the New Wave : and post-Punk styles]. : If it wasn’t played or recorded in New York, Los Angeles, London, : Manchester and Birmingham between 1975 and 1979, then it isn’t punk. It’s : either a different style [hardcore, skatecore, etc.] or Punk revival. : Most of what passes for punk today is too complex, too well produced, too : musical to have been recognizable as punk in the late-70s. : And my opinion is that the interest that a lot of young people have in punk : today is really no different than their peers’ interests in 60s hippie : music, folk, glam and whatever. It’s nostalgia for a time that they don’t : remember. HELLLL NO! Punk is Not dead! That’s like saying "if it wasn’t recorded at Sun Studios in Memphis in the early ’50s…", or "If it wasn’t played by Alan Freed on his radio show in Cleveland in the ’50s…" then "…it’s not rock & roll." Those were some of the origins, but the style has expanded beyond that to such an extent that if you tried saying that, You’d have a Billion people worldwide telling you to Fuck off. In fact, Those things that you mentioned aren’t even the first mention of Punk rock. That happened all over the place as "garage rock" from ‘64-’68 as documented by the great "Nuggets" collection and later boxed set. Those were the original "punk rockers" because they were just "A few neighborhood punks" who got together and played, regardless of technique, originality, or whatever. If you want to get more indicative of the style, those places you mentioned STILL weren’t the first epicenters of what became the "punk Sound." That was Detroit, Where the MC5 and The Stooges started the stylings that were later imitated by the Ramones, who then passed it on to the Sex Pistols, and so forth. And even they got it from the aforementioned Garage Groups. If you want to talk about that particular era, you’re STILL full of shit. San Francisco was, at that time, enjoying an ENORMOUS explosion of Punk bands, as documented by local Fanzines such as "Seek & Destroy." In the recent reprints of the original editions, there is a very well written intro by Jello Biafra (of Dead Kennedys infamy) about just what the original punk scene was like in SF. Hell, the first edition of S&D has a list of ALL the punk bands and their home cities at that time, as known by the editors of S&D. My conclusion: there’s a LOT more punks out there than you can account for, even back then. To paraphrase Biafra, Punk is an attitude, not just a musical style. Back then you had bands like ELO proposing to play at numerous concerts (thus making the money of playing at numerous concerts) at once using holograms. Original punks saw how far removed the excesses of the ’70s were from the spirit and admittedly great music of the late’60s, when it was about the music, period. So what they did was make music that was completely opposed to the music of the time, both in style and form. Where the commercial songs were getting longer (4-5+ minutes each) and jammed out, punk was short, focused, and ended definitely in under 3 minutes. Where Commercial rock had people dressed in sequins and $800 boots, Punk had the people in what they wore everyday-jeans, t-shirts, sneakers-as well as what was considered completely out of style, like pork pie hats, skinny cut-off ties, suits, etc that could all be gotten from goodwill for less than $20. And if punk is indeeed an attitude, as per Mr. Jello, then it cannot be limited to a given age group or era, as anyone with that attitude of "I hate everything about the crap they’re passing off as ‘music,’ so I’m gonna make my own" is automatically a punk, no matter if they’re 8, 80, rich, poor, black, white, male, female, or a part of any other category you wish to name. Unlike what you leaked, new wave and punk were NOT separated at the beginning, according to Biafra. It was only later, as "punk" became defined as more physical, crude, and brutish, that New Wave was considered to be outside of punk. In the beginning, anyone playing songs that were in contrast to what was on the radio then was considered a punk, even those who played clean and clicky stuff. Thus, both Blondie and the Cars were "punk," too. So what about Black Flag? They’re Punk, too. Not only did they start in the (according to your lame-assed definition) requisite area and era (LA, 76-77), but they transcend genres, essentially creating what is now known as hardcore. But if THEY count, and they played hardcore, then surely other, similar bands must as well. And what about those bands that were influenced by them to an extent that they started playing the same music while the Flag was still around (BF broke up in ‘87 or so if you didn’t know)? Well then, they muyst be punks too. And then your neat little drivel goes all to hell. If you want to count only members, Pat Smear, an original member of the LA Punk band, the Germs, became a member of Nirvana. He played with them on "In Utero" and the subsequent tour. All of a sudden, Nirvana (gasp!) is defined as punk, and all the bands like them (early-era alternative) must be punk too, including Soundgarden, the Pixies, The Melvins, Hole, Mudhoney, and innumerable others, some of which are still around today. So Screw you and your pretty little definition of punk. It doesn’t work. Rock isn’t the same as it was back in the ’50s, Punk isn’t the same as it was back in the ’70s. Times change, the music changes, but the style lives on. The only way a style can die is if it NEVER influences anybody anymore. That certainly hasn’t happened with punk. Deal with it. And next time, Do a little survey of the genre and its changes before you leak your info on us all. That way you don’t look like a complete moron when someone who actually knows what they’re talking about gives names, places, dates, sources, bands, and generally puts the ignorant in their place to be laughed at by all. And if you don’t know, shut up and defer to the people who do. After all, "Even a fool is considered wise when he doesn’t open his mouth." — "Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -Winston Churchill

Response:

Which they apparently did. Dived on him, gave him the mike, spit all over him, pulled him up on the stage and then threw him off…even said over the PA, "we hear this guy Rob is a fag", which blew his mind, and i laughed when I heard this….. i never told him about meeting them. he said it was the most significant event of his life.

20 pts… great story… Always funny when "bigger than life" collides with "normal life". Chip McDonald ]]] "Try to be reasonable whenever possible" ]]] http://www.mindspring.com/~chipm/chip.htm ]]] I teach guitar – check out http://www.mindspring.com/~chipm/lessons.htm ]]] Musician, voracious reader, overly contemplative thinker, punching bag for fate. ]]] "People think I’m in my own world; that’s ok, they know me there" – J. Hodgson

Response:

My War by black flag

That’s when they really started to suck. because i care about the FUCKING MUSIC, that’s all that it was about

The music, along with an overwhelming statement that it was "just about the music". not stage antics

You’re trying to tell me that Rollins wasn’t (isn’t) a posing motherfucker? He’s definitely into his "look" on stage, which is flexing and acting like a tough guy that he’s not. Which I would consider "stage antics". the music, appreciating the music, being annoying and having a good time. it was about being who you were.

Unless of course you weren’t annoying and violent. Then you didn’t fit in.

Response:

More to the point, Punk IS retro.

I agree that the theory of punk is retro, but there has been an ongoing, everchanging underground "punk" scene way after the Sex Pistols broke up. In many cases, the music has evolved from the three chord class into much more complex music. Bands like All, Dag Nasty and so forth. I guess you could argue that since these bands don’t sound like the original "punk" bands, then they aren’t punk. But what is the definition of punk? It’s just a term that some guy in the media made up to describe extreme rock and roll. Therefore, punk was going on long before there was a title for the genre. Bands like the Stooges and the MC5 fit the bill. And is punk just about making political statements against the establishment and being offensive? Then how would you explain the Ramones? They really didn’t have much of a statement. They were considered punk because of thier three-chord aggressive sound. Therefore breaking the molds of the bands before them by taking a new approach to pop music. I think that bands like the Descendents and All can wedge thier way into the punk definition even though thier sound is not akin to "classic" punk. They seem to make thier music for themselves, which is an ideal of punk. So in essence, I would say that not ALL new punk is retro. Of course bands like Total Chaos and Rancid and all the rest of the bands with mohawks, bondage clothes and three chord anthems are living in the past. And therefore, I would consider them to be retro.

Response:

It’s rockabilly, acid rock, hard rock, punk rock, heavy metal, rap/hip-hop, whatever; but the ‘upset’ factor is the key.

yeah. twenty years ago i got the sex pistols record and wore the grooves out on it. Now i’m old and it gives me a headache after fifteen minutes. lol I suppose Shania Twain is a sign of the end of New Country –

naw, she’s just the Budweiser of American music. Great packaging, great imaging, fairly papable stuff(!)……. but there’s just so much better elsewhere. and now MP3s are where the trends are. god i hope so. If we all survive this Y2K madness……. an mp3 revolution howldog

Response:

Once ther was this punk, see. He had a rock, see. There was this store window, see. It was phenomenal, see. Made him a Phenomenon, see. That explain it? Dale Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

yet still, no credit given to the west coast scene who literally STARTED any type of hardcore movement, go listen to My War by black flag. i don’t really care about anecdotes or fucking analyizations (sp?), because i care about the FUCKING MUSIC, that’s all that it was about, not stage antics or pyrotechnic shows or t-shirts or profit or anything, it was about playing the music, appreciating the music, being annoying and having a good time. it was about being who you were. henry rollins was working in a FUCKING ICE CREAM STORE to pay the fucking RENT when black flag broke up, it was back when music was fucking respectable.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you follow the history of the rock music industry you will note that punk rock becomes popular whenever the recording industry goes into its retro or nostalgia mode. The recording industry does this whenever a new recording format arrives on the scene. It happened in the 70’s with cassetes, and in the 90’s with CDs. In each case it allowed the recording industry to resell the hits of the past 20 years to the public a second time. Punk is designed to compliment retro. It features a sound that harkens back to an earlier era as well an attitude that is militantly hostile to any recent innovation. Its seething negativity is designed to make the good old days seem much more glorious. Its cheaply recorded so the recording companies don’t take much of a loss if it doesn’t sell. Its main purpose is not to sell itself, but rather to sell the nostalgia for all the "classic" bands recording companies have re-released in a new format. Its a lot safer for labels to re-release proven hits of yesteryear than it is to gamble on recording new bands. The grunge-punk-alternative music of the 90’s had more to do with selling Led Zeppelin boxed sets than anything else. Kormak — Read my message board for shred/metal guitarists http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb582004

Response:

I think one thing that’s missing from this discussion is the grassroots philosophy of punk. The vast majority of punk, new and old (call it hardcore, skatecore, whatever) is done by tiny labels or the bands themselves. The punk your talking are the few bands that were picked by big labels for mass marketing. Most punk is happening in small clubs and basements (even with bands that tour nationally). Punk is underground. The Sex Pisols and their ilk are only the tip of the iceberg. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you follow the history of the rock music industry you will note that punk rock becomes popular whenever the recording industry goes into its retro or nostalgia mode. The recording industry does this whenever a new recording format arrives on the scene. It happened in the 70’s with cassetes, and in the 90’s with CDs. In each case it allowed the recording industry to resell the hits of the past 20 years to the public a second time. Punk is designed to compliment retro. It features a sound that harkens back to an earlier era as well an attitude that is militantly hostile to any recent innovation. Its seething negativity is designed to make the good old days seem much more glorious. Its cheaply recorded so the recording companies don’t take much of a loss if it doesn’t sell. Its main purpose is not to sell itself, but rather to sell the nostalgia for all the "classic" bands recording companies have re-released in a new format. Its a lot safer for labels to re-release proven hits of yesteryear than it is to gamble on recording new bands. The grunge-punk-alternative music of the 90’s had more to do with selling Led Zeppelin boxed sets than anything else. Kormak — Read my message board for shred/metal guitarists http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb582004

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are an idiot! Music is constantly changing due to different generations growing up. Young people always seek to tear down what has come before them. This is what keeps music fresh and innovative. Thank god or people might still be listening to Peter Frampton! When the prevailing style of music becomes complacent and bloated, young bands rise up to tear them down. Record companies are not the CIA! They follow trends not create them. What did the record companies go find the members of Green Day, teach them to play and write their songs? Why would a record company decide to throw away what is currently making them rich to start a new unproven trend? Sorry but record companies are not that brave. Also I don’t know where you record but it’s not cheap. Try $45 an hour for a small studio. I myself do not follow the trends but rely on "a good song is a good song" philosophy. I personally enjoy music from the 50’s til now. You might be too old to get it but there’s been some damn fine music come out in the last 10 years. There will always be good and bad music but right now the current trends are becoming quite complacent so look out! — Findlay Sonic Revival Homepage + MP3 page www.mp3.com/sonicrevival www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Disco/8856/ If you follow the history of the rock music industry you will note that punk rock becomes popular whenever the recording industry goes into its retro or nostalgia mode. The recording industry does this whenever a new recording format arrives on the scene. It happened in the 70’s with cassetes, and in the 90’s with CDs. In each case it allowed the recording industry to resell the hits of the past 20 years to the public a second time. Punk is designed to compliment retro. It features a sound that harkens back to an earlier era as well an attitude that is militantly hostile to any recent innovation. Its seething negativity is designed to make the good old days seem much more glorious. Its cheaply recorded so the recording companies don’t take much of a loss if it doesn’t sell. Its main purpose is not to sell itself, but rather to sell the nostalgia for all the "classic" bands recording companies have re-released in a new format. Its a lot safer for labels to re-release proven hits of yesteryear than it is to gamble on recording new bands. The grunge-punk-alternative music of the 90’s had more to do with selling Led Zeppelin boxed sets than anything else. Kormak — Read my message board for shred/metal guitarists http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb582004

– Dale Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

If you follow the history of the rock music industry you will note that punk rock becomes popular whenever the recording industry goes into its retro or nostalgia mode… [snip] Punk is designed to compliment retro…

More to the point, Punk IS retro. It was a style of music played by largely untrained and unsigned musicians in New York, Los Angeles, London, Manchester and Birmingham between 1975 and 1979. As it acheived some commercial success, its practionioners either adopted new syles [The Clash, Talking Heads, Blondie] or disbanded [Sex Pistols, Television]. It was followed by imitators who created the New Wave and post-Punk styles]. If it wasn’t played or recorded in New York, Los Angeles, London, Manchester and Birmingham between 1975 and 1979, then it isn’t punk. It’s either a different style [hardcore, skatecore, etc.] or Punk revival. Most of what passes for punk today is too complex, too well produced, too musical to have been recognizable as punk in the late-70s. And my opinion is that the interest that a lot of young people have in punk today is really no different than their peers’ interests in 60s hippie music, folk, glam and whatever. It’s nostalgia for a time that they don’t remember. MF

Response:

The grunge-punk-alternative music of the 90’s had more to do with selling Led Zeppelin boxed sets than anything else.

possibly, however i feel that’s a skewed analogy. Led Zeppelin could have sold a "boxed set" in the mid 70s. the mid 80s. anytime. they never really went away, at least in the minds of the american listening public……. there may well be some correlation to the explosion of alternative rock and the re-release and reunions of classic bands, classic albums, etc. however i think i remember the explosion of the "classic rock" radio station format coming along much earlier, in the mid 80s. Before alternative. howldog

Response:

I would have to believe that it is the other way around, Punk was/is a response to the record companies attempt to push us into safe/non-threatening, cookie cutter music.

this is nothing new, and certainly not limited to merely punk music. In fact, this hatred of "the old man’s limp music" is what has fueled many changes in music style, rock and roll in particular. Teenage aggressive angst pumped into loud hormone stomping. One might argue that the only difference between the Sex Pistols and the Sun Sessions was the size of the guitar amps. of course that isnt the only difference, society was completely different in 1974 than it was in 1954, but there are many similarities in the music, the rebellion, the cutting edge, the use of simplicity and sheer teenage Look at the history of rock, it has always had a rebel beginning, then the attempt of corporate bigwigs to homogenize it to a safe pop sound, then the underground explodes again with new music. This has happened over and

over. oh. yes. sorry for arguing. lol In the ’50’s we went from Bo Diddley & Elvis to Neil Sedaka and Ricky Nelson,

wait a minnit, Nelson wasnt that bad, he had James Burton on guitar. Some of his stuff was lightweight but a lot of it was rockin. The lyrics usually were pretty tame teenage romance stiff tho. I think Pat boone and his horrible "they wont even let me shake my hips" version of Tutti Frutti goes better with Sedaka in that "limp" category than Nelson. then the Beatles burst on the scene and new innovative music started a rush for 6 years. Then as that wave died out, Disco took over, a much more corporate music with its loads of session musicians, most of the profits stayed in the corporate world.

i would agree but i think this took longer than 6 years. Beatles hit in 1963…. i really liked a lot of the 70s rock music, especially the early 70s, where you had bands of players that were really very good musicians, Yes, Purple, Zep, ELP, Allmans, Elton John, Jethro Tull, The Who, the list goes on and on. True that as the 70s wore on, many of these acts became huge stars and there was a perception that the rock "gods" (i think Zeppelin was the highest profile target for this slamming) were out of touch and too busy playing Hollywood to make music that normal angst ridden teenagers could relate to. Punk came in to save the day, and pushed it up a notch. The corporate guys got hold of this and watered it down to ‘new wave’,

this doesnt explain how many of the people themselves formed bands that created said "watered down new wave". I mean are you suggesting that record company A&R guys formed bands like Tommy Tutone and the Go Gos? I think lots of these movements are purely the product of more and more average people getting in groups and writing songs. By the 80s there were millions more people actively pursuing rock music as a craft and an art than there were in the 70s, hence, a wider variety of styles. Punk sure as hell didnt "save my day". Even tho i played in a few punk bands. howl

Response:

If you follow the history of the rock music industry you will note that punk rock becomes popular whenever the recording industry goes into its retro or nostalgia mode. The recording industry does this whenever a new recording format arrives on the scene. It happened in the 70’s with cassetes, and in the 90’s with CDs. In each case it allowed the recording industry to resell the hits of the past 20 years to the public a second time. Punk is designed to compliment retro. It features a sound that harkens back to an earlier era as well an attitude that is militantly hostile to any recent innovation. Its seething negativity is designed to make the good old days seem much more glorious. Its cheaply recorded so the recording companies don’t take much of a loss if it doesn’t sell. Its main purpose is not to sell itself, but rather to sell the nostalgia for all the "classic" bands recording companies have re-released in a new format. Its a lot safer for labels to re-release proven hits of yesteryear than it is to gamble on recording new bands. The grunge-punk-alternative music of the 90’s had more to do with selling Led Zeppelin boxed sets than anything else. Kormak — Read my message board for shred/metal guitarists http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb582004

Response:

I would have to believe that it is the other way around, Punk was/is a response to the record companies attempt to push us into safe/non-threatening, cookie cutter music. As a NYC punker from the ’70s, we hated the ‘clean cut’ disco trash that was being forced on us by all the radiostations, and wanted to hear something raw, aggressive, and powerful. It wasn’t about buying old music again on a new medium, hell most of us at that time barely had enough cash to be the albums, and tape players were not cheap, so most didn’t have both. Look at the history of rock, it has always had a rebel beginning, then the attempt of corporate bigwigs to homogenize it to a safe pop sound, then the underground explodes again with new music. This has happened over and over. In the ’50’s we went from Bo Diddley & Elvis to Neil Sedaka and Ricky Nelson, then the Beatles burst on the scene and new innovative music started a rush for 6 years. Then as that wave died out, Disco took over, a much more corporate music with its loads of session musicians, most of the profits stayed in the corporate world. Punk came in to save the day, and pushed it up a notch. The corporate guys got hold of this and watered it down to ‘new wave’, again a much safer, sellable sound, and this held sway until the late ’80s when grunge hit the airwaves. Now that has turned to ‘alternative’ which is more marketable, so we will have to keep looking underground for the real deal to emerge again! Frank

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I also have to disagree with you my friend, you wrote- that punk has ‘an attitude that is militantly hostile to any recent innovation. Its seething negativity is designed to make the good old days seem much more glorious’ I’m sorry but this is not what punk was about! quite the opposite in fact. The original( discuss ) (Uk ) punks were totally disenchanted with society of the 70’s and their place ( or lack of ) in it. They despised anything that was associated to the previous generations achievements. Please read ‘Englands Dreaming’ by John Savage and sort yerself out. Jim from where the Clash lived remove the no_ for the mail to go If you follow the history of the rock music industry you will note that punk rock becomes popular whenever the recording industry goes into its retro or nostalgia mode. The recording industry does this whenever a new recording format arrives on the scene. It happened in the 70’s with cassetes, and in the 90’s with CDs. In each case it allowed the recording industry to resell the hits of the past 20 years to the public a second time. Punk is designed to compliment retro. It features a sound that harkens back to an earlier era as well an attitude that is militantly hostile to any recent innovation. Its seething negativity is designed to make the good old days seem much more glorious. Its cheaply recorded so the recording companies don’t take much of a loss if it doesn’t sell. Its main purpose is not to sell itself, but rather to sell the nostalgia for all the "classic" bands recording companies have re-released in a new format. Its a lot safer for labels to re-release proven hits of yesteryear than it is to gamble on recording new bands. The grunge-punk-alternative music of the 90’s had more to do with selling Led Zeppelin boxed sets than anything else. Kormak — Read my message board for shred/metal guitarists http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb582004

Response:

You are an idiot! Music is constantly changing due to different generations growing up. Young people always seek to tear down what has come before them. This is what keeps music fresh and innovative. Thank god or people might still be listening to Peter Frampton! When the prevailing style of music becomes complacent and bloated, young bands rise up to tear them down. Record companies are not the CIA! They follow trends not create them. What did the record companies go find the members of Green Day, teach them to play and write their songs? Why would a record company decide to throw away what is currently making them rich to start a new unproven trend? Sorry but record companies are not that brave. Also I don’t know where you record but it’s not cheap. Try $45 an hour for a small studio. I myself do not follow the trends but rely on "a good song is a good song" philosophy. I personally enjoy music from the 50’s til now. You might be too old to get it but there’s been some damn fine music come out in the last 10 years. There will always be good and bad music but right now the current trends are becoming quite complacent so look out! — Findlay Sonic Revival Homepage + MP3 page www.mp3.com/sonicrevival www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Disco/8856/

Response:

I also have to disagree with you my friend, you wrote- that punk has ‘an attitude that is militantly hostile to any recent innovation. Its seething negativity is designed to make the good old days seem much more glorious’ I’m sorry but this is not what punk was about! quite the opposite in fact. The original( discuss ) (Uk ) punks were totally disenchanted with society of the 70’s and their place ( or lack of ) in it. They despised anything that was associated to the previous generations achievements. Please read ‘Englands Dreaming’ by John Savage and sort yerself out. Jim from where the Clash lived remove the no_ for the mail to go

Response:

Filed under: Acne

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Talking Acne

Real topics from real people all about ACNE