What is punk rock?

A few weeks back, there were myriad threads concerning "favorite punk band," "favorite punk song," "favorite punk album," and whatnot. Today, with little I need to accomplish at work, I fell to thinking: what exactly is this punk thing?

Sure, there are artists I always thought of as "punk," and I'm sure many of you have similar thoughts. But this is hardly a definition. Can anyone adequately delineate what makes a record punk or not, or are we ultimately left with a Potter Stewart-type definition -- "I know it when I hear it," as it were?

Lester Bangs and Lenny Kaye were calling mid-'60s bands like the Sonics and ? and the Mysterians "punk rock" long before CBGB was booking anything other than Country, Bluegrass, and Blues. But where does that end? Does this mean that Little Richard was punk (after all, Gerry Roslie sure did love Little Richard), while Television and the Minutemen (jazz bands that played punk clubs) were not?

Other writers thought of punk as hard-edged, non-rhythym & blues-based music, along the lines of Suicide or the Sex Pistols. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not Suicide and the Pistols were, indeed, grounded in R & B (I would say yes); that leaves out a broad range of music usually considered "punk," such as the Ramones. Additionally, taken to extremes, this viewpoint could allow for some of popular music's more vulgar expressions (such as techno) to be cosidered "punk."

And there are some who characterize punk as being less about the music, and more about the "fuck you" attitude. Of course, that would make Charlie Parker, John Cage, Serge Gainsbourg, Bob Dylan, and John Lennon (circa 1963) "punk;" while it would disqualify the gregarious and winning Jonathan Richman.

So, ignoring RandomKoolzip's thoughts on the matter (which may have changed in the last month, anyway), the local record store's bin arrangement, my second-cousin's hairdo, the musicians, the critics, the fans, and Mark Perry's admonition that punk died the day the Clash signed to CBS, I ask you:

Were artists like the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, Yoko Ono, the New York Dolls, the MC5, and the Modern Lovers punk; or were they "pre-punk?" What about Bangs' and Kaye's sixties garage bands? What of the early-'80s L.A. scene -- punk or "post-punk?" Is there ANY music being made today that qualifies as "punk," or was it solely the product and province of certain places at certain times?

It's thoughts like these that reinforce my opinion that record stores should be classified alphabetically, irrespective of genre, as genre-specific identification can often seem arbitrary and specious. It sure makes records easier to find sometimes, though.

Everything is punk. Nothing is punk.

Does anybody care?

You ain't hardcore cause you spike your hair,
When a jock still lives inside your head!

Nazi punks
Nazi punks
Nazi punks
FUCK OFF!!!

... different things as there are different people and ways of thinking. You have pegged in the first answer why punk cannot be categorized.

is actually more punk than punkvoter.com since the latter represents the more overwhelming sentiment in the punk community and the former represents a bucking of this system.

The whole thing is totally circular and in this day and age the word means any number of things, not one of them with a damn bit of relevance.

I have, and always will be a punk fan of the "lifestyle" and the music. But I've given up thinking about what is or is not punk.

That's my whole point!

...BACKING the REAL status quo.

Kind of like "punk" Christian bands. They are really only using "punk" trappings to forward what, for them, is the more important cause: Conservative politics.

Regarding their more important cause, the question is this: Are they really thinking for themselves? It's really kind of hard to argue that they're going against the status quo when the status quo is so conservative.

I would make the same argument for some progressive/leftist "punks". They may take on the trappings of punk rock, and the politics, simply because it is the thing to do. They may just be parroting leftist talking points because that is what their friends do, because that is what punks are supposed to do.

THAT is not very "punk", either.

...throughout the 90's the status quo was much more sensitivity and awareness with bands like Rage Against The machine and the Beastie Boys and Nirvana and Pearl Jam being very vocally liberal and the whole "I feel your pain.." sensitivity culture on the rise. You had things like Lillith Fair and Lollapalooza celebrating alternative culture and liberalism.

At the same time, punk and hardcore started getting pretty apolitical, right wing, and reactionary in a lot of ways.

By the logic you present, that was o.k. since they were reacting against the more culturally sensitive and aware mainstream.

I'm not saying you think this or trying to dig at you personally. Just saying how much of a vague, slippery slope this has become.

Even if that IS the status quo, but as long as you're thinking for yourself about it.

Some conservative punks ARE actually punk (by this definition). Just not the ones who blindly follow and don't think it out for themselves.

Again, though, I say "by this definition". I realize all this is just so much mental masturbation as there are infinite definitions for "punk", and few of them follow any "logic". Like everbody else here, I'm just getting sucked into a fun, if pointless, discussion. That was the initial intent, I think. No worries. I didn't take any offense.

Read my last post (way at bottom).

so therefore "conservative punk" is an oxymoron. I could make an exception for Johnny Ramone who apparently was always a Republican, and isn't trying to hop aboard the Busheep express to conformityville as idiots like Michale Graves are doing

..dont' think for themselves. I hate the notion of conservative punk as much as the next guy but particularly in the scenes I've been a part of over 20 years or so now, I've experienced just as many blindly following leftie punks as I have right wing ones.

Serge Gainsbourg is punk, Sum 41 are not.
David Hockney is punk, Blink 182 are not.
Hal Hartley is punk, Avril Lavigne (sorry I can't finish that for laughing)

Don't answer before listening to his cover of "Highway to Hell."

Then he's punk.

He CAN touch you there, after all.

Because you rock almost as hard as Bryan Adams!

Just helps me keep things straight in my mind...
And to eliminate the possiblility of Offspring or Green Day being legitimized with the title once bestowed only upon those with far more anger and attitude than instrumental chops...

If you are an accomplished musician in the technical sense, punk aint what you're playing.

They were one of the most technically proficient bands I've ever heard.

I always defined punk along lines of musicianship (or the lack thereof) as compared to angst...

Use your own rubric...

Any number of high-school talent show bands?

while struggling to bash out two-string power chords?

Did their music come from their guts as opposed to their intellect?

If so, then, yes...

Once you become technical and cerebral, you may be a protest artist, but you have risen above the primal ooze that is pure punk...

Understand that this is just my point of view... or are you still feeling passive-agressive?

The Ramones were not great musicians, but they were not pissed off at society. They (like the Modern Lovers) wanted to recapture what had been lost (an odd wish, but whatever) since the Beatles.

Joey Ramone wanted to be Ronnie Specter (Mary from the Shangri-Las was far too scary, too -- dare I say it? -- punk rock for him).

Were the Ramones NOT a punk band?

Perhaps anger and protest are not necessary ingredients in the punk brew...

I just like to reserve the lable "punk" for the late 70's - early 80's bands (Pistols, Ramones, Clash...) who seemed to define "punk" as a more-or-less cohesive musical-social phenomenon.

Those who came before were maverics and nose-thumbers in various unique ways... those who followed were, for the most part, influenced by the "punk movement"...

But again, Green Day... Offspring... punk? NO
Influenced by punk? Absolutely.

Y'know, bands that can't play -- "oh, we're a punk band." No you're not, you're what Steve Vai would sound like if his hands were all bandaged up in a burn ward.

Like people who can't sing trying to come off as "Dylanesque"...

mmmkay...

Dylan wasn't a traditionally great singer (nor was Maria Callas), but he became a great singer because of the way he used his limited vocal talent. Likewise, I consider Steve Jones an outstanding guitarist -- he didn't play anything I can't play, but he played it with his own aesthetic sensibility.

(at least in my definition of such) were not technically proficient in no way detracted from their musical value...

Steve Jones did for the Pistols exactly what Steve Howe did for Yes: he played his instrument in a way that worked within the context of the band and was a key part of their musical statement.

On Edit: Damn... Did I just compare Steve Jones and Steve Howe???

But Tom Verlaine kicks BOTH of their asses!

He was way more PUNK ROCK!

But way more punk than Saint David.

I think the concept of and term "Power Pop" was developed for just that situation. The Police in Britain, or Television here in the U.S. were too technically proficient to be punk, but they weren't what was in the mainstream of music either.

The lyrics were still pushing some envelopes, but they were good players. So, they were actually slagged out of the punk community. (It's true for both of those bands, and many others.) The punks turned on them, because they were "too good", or at least too worried about being good.

So, they weren't punk. They were fresh, they were original, they were different, but i think there is a "goodness threshhold" when it comes to punk. If you cross it, no matter your intentions, your attitude, or your energy, you stop being punk. And, that's perfetly ok.
The Professor

Ten-minute songs aren't really pop-friendly. For every "Venus de Milo," there was a "Little Johnny Jewel."

And Tom Verlaine's voice is even more of an "acquired taste" than Dylan's.

I always thought of New Wave as the new wave of British rock, so the American bands that fit that mode needed a different name. Thus, power pop was born. The accent is more on the "power" than on the pop.

I agree with you on your assessment of Television. I was a big fan, but obviously, their lack of huge commercial success, indicates they weren't the cup of tea for the masses.
The Professor

And a rather silly one, at that! :toast:

Punk was real only for a very short time

And why does it matter? What makes "punk" worthy of definition, anyway?

That is all you need to know. ;)

Punk.

I buried it. John Lydon helped.

Badoomsh.
Pitiful attempt at humour.

I am interested in hearing you trash GBV, then Koolzip may come over to play. :P

;)

Who will think of the children?!?!?
:evilgrin:

punk rock = rock music with deliberately offensive lyrics expressing anger and social alienation; in part a reaction against progressive rock.

Garage bands who did not care about expressing a wide range of mastery on their instruments but instead wanted to rock out econo style like the '50's garage bands of their forefathers. It was a sharp reaction to the overly instrumented and overly produced progressive or Superband rock of the 1970's. Bands that are often mentioned are the old school punk of the Ramones, Sex Pistols and the Clash.

This progressed later as it arched across the US to California bringing into a more cynical, almost humorous edge with the even harder and more vicious hardcore punk. Bands associated to this genre are the Dead Kennedys, Circle Jerks, Suicidal Tendencies, and Bad Brains.

As this scene began to degenerate with the rise of skinhead punkers and nazi punks, there came a new breed of punkers. People who grew up punk but at the same time actually took the time to well ... grow up. This became postpunk defined by bands like Husker Du, the Replacements, and the Minutemen.

Now, things get hazy as some people see the next real step in punk progression being grunge and then there is the whole popularization of punk into the bubblegum or pop punk.

There are still a few punk bands that I can listen to like Bad Religion or NOFX but if you want good music you have to as always go looking real hard through all the shit to find it.

+

I want a DEFINITION, people! :evilgrin:

punk rock = rock music with deliberately offensive lyrics expressing anger and social alienation; in part a reaction against progressive rock.

Garage bands who did not care about expressing a wide range of mastery on their instruments but instead wanted to rock out econo style like the '50's garage bands of their forefathers. It was a sharp reaction to the overly instrumented and overly produced progressive or Superband rock of the 1970's.

That is a definition!

You mention punk as a reaction to the prog-rock and arena-rock of the 1970s; but you also write of "Garage bands who did not care about expressing a wide range of mastery on their instruments but instead wanted to rock out econo style."

The first group dates punk to the mid- to late-'70s and early-'80s. Yet the second group encompasses both the types of '60s bands memorialized in compilations like "Nuggets" (and Crypt's "Back from the Grave" series), AND latter-day revivalists like the Mummies, the Gories, and Supercharger.

Which is it?

Is it both?

Is it neither?

Punk was to me at 18
Spiked hair and ripped t-shirts
Old Chucks and Vans
Punk was defined as much
by what it was not
There was no glam or long hair
except for the Ramones
special exceptions have to made
Ripping guitars without
always needing a solo
Yelling into the throes
without needed the range
of a opera singer and without
the theater of the metal bands
It was to hear the hardcore
without the metalhead hype
Sitting back wearing the Docs
Flying the flannel and
making fun of the hippies
and the jocks at the same
time.

Jamming econo style with
busted instruments
but still putting the heart
to the anger and the fun
back into screaming "fuck you all."
into the mic and understanding
new wave was selling out.

It became to less and less
about the colored hair
and more about the attitude
of laughing at your own
suburban punk screw off angst.

Watch Repo man to understand punk.

+

I do not seek to "understand" punk.

I understand punk fine.

I seek understanding of YOUR understanding of punk.

Thanks for the poem, as it was one of the first serious attempts to answer my question (as I intended it, if not as I actually ASKED it ;)) that I've seen this whole thread.

Just like Travis!

MAN, did it ever spark a reaction from the local community!

The thrust of the article was that punk MUSIC and FASHION has inflitrated the mainstream, to the point where the Clash is used to sell cars, and the Specials are used to sell diapers. The hottest "fashion" at the mall back then (about 3 years ago, but moreso now) was "punk".

I did write some about how punk artists have become much more diversified... extending the punk ethic into indie/underground bands of today that might not sound "punk" at all, but have grown to incorporate almost anything into their music. I didn't say anything to denigrate segments of the punk community that are socially and politically striving for change. I really didn't address that at all. It was more about how, as an aging punk myself, it was interesting to see things that we once thought were so edgy become so mainstream.

Local punks, however, took great offense at the implication that "punk" had sold out. Nah, the Clash were never really punk! (well, they never said that, but they did say it aboput the Specials). Punk hasn't changed or "grown up", man. Punk is alive!

I was taught a big lesson in how defensive (and narrow-minded) some people can be about their definitions of "punk".

I was taught a big lesson in how defensive (and narrow-minded) some people can be about their definitions of "punk".

Of course, it should be noted, that punk was always diverse musically, "back in the day." The Clash played rockabilly, Suicide did that synth-and-poetry thing, and EVERYBODY played reggae.

I go back and listen to old punk bands and realize how much broader what was defined as "punk" was back then. Any instrument, arrangement, or tempo was likely to pop up.

Now, it's almost got to be that "1-2-3-4!!!" guitar pop. The influence fo Green Day, I guess; who were good in their own time... it's not their fault they got so big.

ON EDIT:
Oh, I wasn't really saying that punk wasn't diverse before (it was, moreso). Just that a lot of aging punk artists or indie/underground bands are maturing to incorporate world music, jazz, country, bluegrass, etc., into their music... to the point where it's not really "punk" music anymore, it's just "music". What is considered to fall within the "punk" scene is much less diverse now. But what true punk artists are doing now is still diverse; it's just no longer considered "punk" music because that definition has become more restrictive.

I remember a wonderful discussion of this topic when I first came to DU in the fall. I will have to look for it.

I recently told a younger friend that I thought punk was about the DIY attitude and the fact that anyone, male or female, could get up with a guitar, bass, poem, stick, rake, etc. and express their opinion, without much musical skill, but attitude and the desire for expresson. IMO the exemplification of punk is: Jonathan Richman singing Pablo Picasso Was Never Called An Asshole.

To put my own slant on it, I would probably never have been in a band, or thought I could play drums and write songs with no training ( well piano and chorus, but) unless I had heard the Sex Pistols and the Clash. They were angry, relatively unschooled and didn't seem to pay a lot of attention to musical conventions. Many or my friends would not have spent years of their lives playing often loud and unintelligible music in various clubs, and not caring if they got paid or recorded, or even had an audience!, if not for punk.

We could be here all day and night and for a month debating when this
"attitude" started... gut bucket blues... 13th Floor Elevators... Baudelaire ... Allan Ginsberg... The Ramones... The Clash... even the Shags. However, I don't think the Shags qualified, I think their dad told them to play! ;) They fit more in the primitive musician category, no?

If you want a real big-head definition, I will go drag out my copy of Englands Dreaming!

Noooooo sooooup...
Noooooo sooooup...
Noooooo sooooup for yooooooou!

Most of those clips were written while it was going down.

One of the problems of western thought is the obsessive need to label and categorize everything. Punk is anything that is a spit in the eye of authority. In regards to bands they move in and out of punk so its not black and white like that. Ornette Coleman was punk - at times. Sun Ra was punk because he said "kiss my ass" to the white concept of music. Nina Simone was punk, many reggae artists were punk (and we all know about the ties to the two genres.) It's a big Fuck You to the Man in his many forms.

This is Punk:




I was heartened to see Bird in your post!

I agree with you that all this needing-to-label-everything is stupid. That is sorta my point with this whole thing. Why do we assign something the adjective "punk," when it seems that nobody can agree on a definition?

I dig you bringing up Magritte, though, that was pretty punk.

Admittedly he is more steeped in the lore of the genre but I always think of punk in visual terms (being a visual artist) and then I apply that to the sounds people make with their music and message. I've been thinking alot lately that the best way to free yourself as an artist is to reject everything and then build a new structure of thought and seeing and hearing and expressing. I think that is what punk does for us in its varied shapes and sizes.

man I am a longwinded bastard ain't I?

...but you certainly are a bastard! :D

http://www.joshstrong.com

punk. But to me punk isn't a category of music. It's an attitude, or an outlook on life. The "fuck you, this world sucks" attitude. The first band that pops into my head is The Misfits. They were punk, and not because of their music. The Clash? Maybe they were, but it's not punk to sell your songs to Jaguar.

You may consider it compromising their art to simply have your song played on a commercial, but I do not.

The song still stands on its own. And its airplay there might actually stimulate the listener to check out more of the Clash's music, and messages (which were VERY "punk", in that they were very anti-status quo, and still are). Many current artists are taking this route more and more simply because the restrictive airplay of the Clear Channels of the world leave commercials as one of the best options to get their music heard.

I also think it is very punk to take care of one's own, and although I'm sure the members of the Clash (Joe Strummer RIP) are not hurting for money, one commercial can make it a whole lot easier to send their kids (and grandkids) to college.

I do not for one second begrudge aging punkers for finally making something off of music that deserved more 25 years ago.

Chickenshit Conformist
by Dead Kennedy's

Album :


Punk's not dead
It just deserves to die
When it becomes another stale cartoon
A close-minded, self-centered social club
Ideas don't matter
It's who you know
If the music's gotten boring
It's because of the people who want everyone to sound the same
Who drive the bright people out of our so-called scene
Till all that's left is a meaningless fad
Hardcore formulas are dogshit
Change and caring are what's real
Is this a state of mind
Or just another label
The joy and hope of an alternative
Have become its own cliche
A hairstyle's not a lifestyle
Imagine Sid Vicious at 35
Who needs a scene
Scared to love and to feel
Judging everythng
By loud fast rules appeal
Who played last night?
"I don't know, I forgot.
But diving off the stage Was a lot of fun."
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees
Make the same old mistakes
Again and again,
Chickenshit conformist
Like your parents
What's ripped us apart even more than drugs
Are the thieves and the goddamn liars
Flipping people off when they share their stuff
When someone falls are there any friends?
Harder core than thou for a year or two
Then it's time to get a real job
Others stay home; it's no fun to go out
When the gigs are wrecked by gangs and thugs
When the thugs form bands, look who gets record deals
From New York metal labels looking to scam
Who sign the most racist queer-bashing bands they can find
To make a buck revving kids up for war
Walk tall, act small
Only as tough as gang approval
Unity is bullshit
When it's under someone's fat boot
Where's the common cause
Too many factions
Safely sulk in their shells
Agree with us on everything
Or we won't help with anythng
That kind of attitude
Just makes a split grow wider
Guess who's laughing while the world explodes
When we're all crybabies
Who fight best among ouselves
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees
That farty old rock and roll attitude's back
"It's competition, man, we wanna break big."
Who needs friends when the money's good
That's right, the '70s are back.
Cock-rock metal's like a bad laxative
It just don't move me, ya know?
The music's OK when there's more ideas than solos
Do we rally need the attitude too?
Shedding thin skin too quickly
As a fan it disappoints me
Same old stupid sexist lyrics
Or is Satan all you can think of?
Crossover is just another word
For lack of ideas
Maybe what we need
Are more trolls under the bridge
Will the metalheads finally learn something-
Or will the punks throw away their education?
No one's ever the best
Once they believe their own press
"Maturing" don't mean rehashing
Mistakes of the past
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees
The more things change
The more they stay the same
We can't grow
When we won't criticize ourselves
The '60s weren't all failure
It's the '70s that stunk
As the clock ticks we dig the same hole
Music scenes ain't real life
They won't get rid of the bomb
Won't eliminate rape
Or bring down the banks
Any kind of real change
Takes more time and work
Than changing channels on a TV set
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees
So eager to please
Peer pressure decrees

+

Didja forget to put that in?

I loved that song when I was younger, but it doesn't speak to me now -- a hairstyle's not a lifestyle, true enough. But for what?

And weren't the DKs themselves part of a closed-minded, self-centered social club by '86?

Its kind of mix with the DK.

On one hand they were railing against the conformists but at the same time they were pissing on a lot of bands that were not tugging the line IMO.

On edit:
I just that it fit the above post.

+

that a lot of the Clash's songs were anti-greed/capitalist, and now they're shilling for a luxury car? I know people change over 25 years, and I don't begrudge them that, but I don't think that these guys are "punk" anymore. I can agree that the music still is...after all, it didn't sell itself to a luxury car company.

Faust was the original punk!

"Police and Thieves" to:

"Police, police, police and thieves oh yeah
Here come, here come, here come
them police and thieves
in their cool jag-u-ars"

They made money (and I'm sure a good bit) off their songs in the past. That is capitalist. They never said that was wrong. Very few punk artists ever said anything was wrong with making money off your music (and if they have, then they are the hypocrites; unless they never took a red cent). This is just another way of doing so.

Their songs were on MTV. MTV aired commercials for just about everyone. Same principle.

The difference is they are not compromising their music or message. One could even argue that the fact that Jaguar wants to use a Clash song for an ad is evidence that (at least a segment of) their market has moved towards punk, as much as one could argue that the Clash has moved away from their punk roots. Plus, one could argue that the Clash are "taking the man" for all they can. Jaguar is going to pay someone to use a song; why not them? It's a quarter-century old, for chrissakes. It's not a sacred religious hymn, and it's theirs to use as they please. It's served it's purpose in the "punk" scene long ago. And, like I say, maybe they'd like their grandkids to get a college education.

The Clash could've done anything they wanted to it and maintained artistic credibility.

If they'd changed the lyrics to their OWN songs, that's another story.

They said drink Miller beer,
But we didn't want to drink that stuff.
We said "we'll drink Budweiser!"
It's always smooth, it's never rough.
Ooo-oh, it's the King of Beers!
Ooo-oh! Budweiser, here's to you, cheers!

or

They offered me a trip to the Bahamas.
They wanted me to fly United or Quantas.
Do you wanna die falling out of the sky?
Do you wanna use your seat cushion
As a flotation device?
Carnival Cruises is the only way to go.
Taking an airplane bloody well blows.
Carnival Cruises is the only way to goooooo.

... lyrics are better anyway.

"Carnival Cruises is the only way to go.
Taking an airplane bloody well blows."

It's now supplanted "Police and Thieves" in my head.

Well, I can at least agree it would be worse with those lyrics.

But I think it's REALLY hypocritical to "take the man for all you can," while selling cars for "the man."

I do see your overall point. To me something is just a bit off here.

... imagined the Clash on a luxury car commercial?!

Or The Specials on a Pampers commercial? ("stop your messin' around!")

It's just, well, as you put it... a bit off.

But "Punk" (the movement, the music, whatever) is not a novel, edgy thing anymore. It's at least 25 years old... it'll be on "oldies" stations soon! It seems downright ubiquitous sometimes. And the original "punk" musicians HAVE changed, as we all do when we age. Perhaps they are less idealistic and more realistic, and more willing to sell a song to Jaguar to pay for the kids' college. And if your definition of punk has idealism as synonymous with punk, then maybe the Clash aren't punk anymore. But I just think they became older and wiser.

I don't think they were ever against making money on their music, though, and they haven't changed their music to make the money; so I can still respect them as being principled (and, yes, punk).

anger or self-parody, or both. They had become quite popular by then.

obsession as well. Or blame the agents. But as Neil Young said, I ain't singin for Pepsi, I ain't singin for Coke....

Not worth the effort.

Punk Rock ('punck*rawck", n. or adj.)

1. One of a myriad number of socio-politcal movements, typically musical in nature, in which the mores of the establised paradigm are challenged or called into question; "Joey refuses to vote because he listens to too much punk rock."

2. Defiantly and boldly resistant to authority, noncompliant towards implanted social norms; "Joey burned the American flag in the middle of the RNC, that is so punk rock!"

I'm sure Johnny Rotten would disagree, considering the admonition to "never trust a hippy."

Superficially, punks defined themselves as the enemies of hippies. However, more than one person -- for example, Boyd Rice and the Stranglers' Hugh Cornwell -- has made the observation that punks are essentially just a different kind of hippie. And I'm inclined to agree with that statement.

The day after * launched the invasion of Iraq last year, antiwar protestors flooded the streets of San Francisco to disrupt business as usual, shut the streets down, and clashed with riot police. Soon afterwards, many pro-war freeper types were mocking the "hippies" protesting in the streets, but most of those war protestors were actually anarchy-symbol-wearing punk rockers. I thought that said just as much about the punks' innate similarities to hippies as it did about the ignorance of the war supporters.

Alternative T.V.'s "The Image Has Cracked."

Mark P. had become the official arbiter of PUNK in the U.K. by then -- yet there he was, lying on the floor, surrounded by Love and Zappa albums.

Malcolm McLaren would've shat himself. But then again, he was just interested in a fast buck (I sure do like Bow Wow Wow, though!)

tell me you aren't serious

one of the worst shows I ever saw...

I kinda already responded to this, so I'll just refer you to my other post (above...or is it below?)

But I'm sure he was just being facetious. Nevertheless, definitions are subject to change with time, and today I believe that being a hippy is so punk rock!

They were also reacting to the peace, love and understanding of hippies.

Not saying that punks and hippies do not have common ground.

However, there was an inherent disdain for the hippie subculture or at least its stereotype.

Punks defined themselves as almost post-apocalyptic in their outlooks very angry and nihilistic.

+

are you using that in past tense or present? In any case, yes some do, others are more existentialist and hopeful for a future that is greater than us all limited to the here and now.

Though I have a t-shirt from the 90's that said "Never Trust a Hippy"

Now it is more a slight disdain for tie dye, pot smoking Grateful Dead set.

In the early days, it was almost part of the subculture to despise the hippies as the sellouts to their own rebellion in the 70's cashing in on their own rebellion culture to the point of making it pointless.

Of course, looking at the pop punk of nowadays and such the worm has turned.

+

i.e. not very. All of the aforementioned terms have become so broad and commonly used to the point where just about anyone could try to claim to be one (or even more) of the above. I was once just as orthodox and small-minded as anyone else as far as having a set idea of what "is" and "isn't" punk. Now that I'm in my thirties and living in the Bush era where there are far more important things to worry about, I couldn't care less about arguing over a definition of punk.
:boring:

That said, the only true punk musician was Fela, the Nigerian musician who created "Afro-beat" in the late '60s and spent the next three decades cranking out wonderful music and talking shit about his country's corrupt government. 'Nuff said.
;)

I think the arguments are way fun, though. They're good to get a sense of just how dogmatic people are, especially when confronted with an "outlier" in the data.

As far as I'm concerned, there are only two substantive types of music:

Good music

Bad music

Any other classification is, ultimately, fruitless.

the argument between liberalism and conservatism is mundane and worn-out. Both sides claim victory over a singular event--take Bush's latest press conference for example: Franken 'Bush is an idiot', Limbaugh 'It was a slam-dunk'. Both claim that the mainstream media opposes their point of view. We know it, we see the dichotomy every day and ignore it, or our own political views have become so ingrained that we truly don't see it.

There is a more fundamental issue at play that is being swept under the rug. It's like a game of chess and we're the pawns protecting our color 'king' from being 'captured'.

Yes, you might think it's nothing new--it truly isn't. You might call being 'in thirties and living in the Bush era', growing up. I call it getting beat down.

so if I am repeating something someone else said, well, tough.

It doesn't make sense to me to label music into categories in the first place, for exactly the reasons you outline above. What do you call Yo Yo Ma after he records tango music? What do you call Joe Strummer after selling "Londin Calling" to Jaguar? What do you call David Johansen after he shows up as Buster Poindexter for the fiftieth time, then plays "Frenchette" at the show? My answer is just "musicians."

None of that answers your question, though. What is punk rock music? The only thing I can come up with is that none of the songs are more than 4 minutes, ever.

HA!

Of course, that discounts the oft-aforementioned Television and Alternative T.V....

I'll say it again -- there are two kinds of music: good or bad.

there is no workable definition. It makes me think of rephrasing the questions and answer like this:

Q. What is punk rock?

A. Yes.

Stroke that part of my ego over there, will you honey? That's right...

That's not the best answer ever. I wouldn't consider a frat party for Bush to be punk rock, would you?

...isn't that the aim of EVERY frat party?

in the Upper West Side, then it could be... I must admit that I consider conservativepunk.com a gathering of punks per se.

More fun, anyway.

I agree with your initial post:
"Everything is punk. Nothing is punk."
... a statement validated by the many many replies.

Thanks for wasting my time.

No, really... thanks!

(a**hole!)
(sorry, just tryin' to be "punk")
(I guess apologizing isn't very "punk")
(a**hole!)

Asshole. :)

Conformist a**hole! ;)

******* ***** ** **** *********** ************* *********!

But I couldn't tell ya, what Punk Rock is...or more accurately, what it was.

My earliest memory, of being immersed in the Punk Culture would have been on April 21st, 1978, when I walked into a Chicago club called O'Banion's after seeing Elvis Costello at the Aragon Ballroom.

I was totally hooked. I had finally (even though I was only 20 at the time) found my people. I was there 2, 3 even 4 nights a week, for the next 2 or 3 years.

I can't say it was the music, or the art, or the drugs, or the sex, since taken separately, there was nothing particularly punk about any of those things. But when you mixed them all together...it came out punk.

BTW, the annual O'Banions reunion is coming up in June, at Club Foot on Augusta. It's always a lot of fun.

...I'll not be able to direct snide comments at you!

Check out this cool page done in memorium of O'Banions. The place were I spent my most formative years. It was a punk haven. Let there be no mistake about it.

http://www.chicagobarproject.com/Memoriam/O'Banion's/O'Banion's.htm

That better?

;-)

According to Falco, Mozart was the first punk.

There seems to be disagreement here as to whether the punk movement was in its nascence a music movement or a visual arts movement. It was neither. It was a social, lifestyle movement, that arose in protest of the lack of meaningful opportunities for young people in the UK once they were out of school. These kids felt that they had disappeared off of the government's and society's radar, and so they decided to do something that would get them noticed. The fashions developed out of this desire to call attention to their socio-economic plight. The music reflected the same ethos; note how many early punk songs from the UK revolve around the whole "no future" theme (start with "Career Opportunities" and complete your own list). The choice of crappy, dodgy equipment had more to do with socio-economic reality than fashion statement, and the relative lack of musical skill compared to chart-toppers of the day was a result of growing up in families where musical instruments and lessons were unobtainable luxuries. The early punks weren't skilled musical technicians who decided to play badly as some sort of anti-prog-rock pose; they played badly because they'd never studied their instruments. Interestingly, this became possibly the greatest contribution of the movement to rock music, the notion that you don't have to be a virtuoso with a mountain of cutting-edge gear to make vital, interesting rock and roll (we'd kind of lost that in the shadow of Yes, ELP, Genesis, Pink Floyd, et al).

The Ramones' stripped-down high-volume approach to riff rock caused them to be lumped in with the UK punks, but the originators of the movement on the other side of the pond were having none of it (anyone else who was over there in the late 70's and early 80's can back me up on this). This is not to say the Ramones' music was not appreciated, but it was certainly not seen as representative of the UK movement, or even an American translation thereof, because it was, for the most part, apolitical party music. They might have been singing that Sheena was a punk rocker, but in it's translation to our shores, the music had become all about saying "fuck you" over just about anything, or for no reason at all. The UK punks had a reason, their target was clearly defined, and they adopted their unique look and sound as a means to garnering attention for their political cause.

To me, punk became cartoonish once it hit the US, and disintegrated into irrelevance once it migrated to Southern California and found its locus in Huntington Beach, where "punk" bands were mostly kids from Laguna Niguel with nice equipment, expensive couture and flashy vehicles to tote it all around in. Sometime between the SoCal punk heyday of bands like the Minutemen and the Germs and the present, "punk" has come to mean music played with a fast, straightforward or ska-tinged 4/4 beat, with lyrics reflecting a snotty or whiny attitude shouted over simple power chords. Hence, bands like Green Day or Sublime are now "punk," despite the fact that their link to the socio-political movement of late-70's Britain is superficial at best.

Punk was certainly an anti-establishment movement, but so was rockabilly, and so was dadaism. If all the word "punk" means is "anti-establishment," then why would we need the word "punk" at all? "Anti-establishment" has been a perfectly clear and serviceable term for decades. When the two terms are used interchangeably, then all of a sudden Dick Dale and William S. Burroughs and Marlon Brando and Jackson Pollack are all deemed "punk." Well, that's OK, I guess, if you don't mind identifying as "punks" individuals whose anti-establishment acts predate the movement itself. It's kind of like calling Rembrandt "art nouveau," though, if you ask me.

have you read ALL of the posts in this thread?

I kinda got tired of the back-and-forth about "Is Lee Majors punk" and assumed the whole thread had gone that route.

Let me guess... the relevant post to which you refer was yours?

And I was right, nobody placed the movement in the historical context of the late 70's in the United Kingdom. The original punks were pissed off about jobs. They wanted them, but couldn't get them, so they figured out a way to let the powers that were know that they were pissed off. Punk was born as a social movement, and with it came a new genre of rock and roll.

And, as I mentioned in my initial post, Lester Bangs' essays and Lenny Kaye's "Nuggets" liner notes both referred to mid-'60s garage band music as "punk," and did so well before little Johnny Lydon had his first bitter.

Sure, there was a social movement in late-'70s Britain. There are social movements all the time, all over the world. What is it that links 1976 London to that silly little word, "punk?"

The word itself has been co-opted to apply to any number of people or groups (as you point out with Lester Bangs' essays, etc.), as is the case with many words as language evolves.

As language evolves, so do the meanings of words, and so has the meaning of "punk".

It continues to evolve today (throughout this very thread, in fact!).

And along with it...

People will also look to artist in the same context and claim that one is "punk" and one is not, depending upon whether or not they like the artist in question!

For example, take London in '77. Some people may like the Clash, but not the Damned. They may then be heard to remark "the Damned aren't punk."

What is with the idea that "punk" has to be a good (or bad, depending on one's taste) thing? In other genres (another reason I don't like genre divisions), you don't have that: in country, I like Johnny Cash, and I don't like Alabama. But how many people say "Alabama is not country?"

And what of the idea that "punk" is not a musical genre, but a social movement? Still, one ascribes a value judgment to things one sees as "punk."

... I mentioned as evidence that "punk" music was now becoming mainstream was the Specials, b/c "Message to You, Rudy" was currently running in a Pampers commercial.

An old punk friend of mine wrote an angry letter challenging my point, saying "they were never really 'punk' anyway!"

Well, of course! A true "punk" band would NEVER allow their music to be used in a DIAPER commercial. So, therefore, by edict of this one punk (whom I still respect as highly principled, if a bit idealistic), the "punk diploma" of The Specials is hereby retroactively revoked!!!

You hear Iggy Pop referred to as "the godfather of punk" all the time. If we're speaking strictly about the stylistic elements that characterized the music that came out of the UK movement, there's certainly an argument to be made here. The Stooges had a very stripped-down, volume-maxed sound. But you could also argue that their sound was more self-consciously cultivated (let's remember that David Bowie produced "Raw Power"). Did the original punk bands in the UK listen to the Stooges? I dunno.

By the time the Clash's "White Riot" single came out in early 1977, the scene had been alive in the streets and pubs of London for a year or more. The Ramones first record came out in late 1976. Does this mean the Ramones borrowed the word "punk" for their lyrics from the UK movement, or that those involved in the movement in the UK borrowed their moniker from some Ramones lyrics? Dunno. The Ramones certainly didn't borrow anything of the UK visual aesthetic, or vice versa. Their denim, aviator shades and mop-tops stand in stark contrast to the Brit's near-mandatory uniform of sculpted hair and bondage-derived leather gear.

Did Joe Strummer listen to the 13th Floor Elevators? As I recall, he had a taste for old blues and 60's R&B.

I guess my main point was that there was a time and a place where a movement was born, and named, and characterized by a radical socio-political orientation as well as certain musical and visual elements. The political stance (revolt against authority, poverty and hopelessness) had certainly happened before; compare the French Revolution. Loud, stripped down music played with an amateurish enthusiasm had certainly happened before, and may or may not have been consciously copied. Hot pink mohawks may have happened before, maybe someone could shed some historical light on that; but aside from the color, the haircut itself we know did not originate with the punks, it originated with the Mohawks!

But the way these elements came together at that time was unique, and significant both culturally and musically. Simply aping one element of the movement does not encompass the movement, as far as I'm concerned. Boy George revolted against the authority of sexual stereotypes, but that doesn't make him a punk. Alain Jourgensen plays really loud repetitive music and screams his lyrics, but that doesn't make him a punk. We could go on like this indefinitely, but I think you understand my point.

...like their first two. Of course, James Williamson played a role in that, as did Iggy's heroin intake.

My point was that the word "punk" -- used to describe a bare-bones, often untrained, musical approach -- existed long before either the U.S. or U.K. "punk scene."

If you were there, you'll likely remember that some people seemed to use "punk" and "new wave" interchangably, at least as regards the music. Of course, some of us now think of "new wave" as being the synth-happy, post-punk stuff we saw on MTV.

There are as many definitions of "punk" as there are music fans. The real question is "should we care?"

we didn't make a big deal out of the punk vs new wave thing. A lot of people were just weird and arty and wore black or thrift store stuff. Most people didn't have mohawks ( the way people tend to think of punk now), etc, that seemed to come later with the hardcore stuff. We wore a lot of black coats and men's suit jackets, like Patti did. And we used to get really weird looks in the U section. Hard to believe now.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't.

Lydon's influences were The Chieftans, Tim Buckley, Neil Young and Capt. Beefheart. Not what you'd expect from the man who fronted the first "Punk" band.

Punk is just a word. It summed up a movement.

I agree with your assessment, Q, except for one thing.

Al's an old friend of mine. He was a punk when I met him, and he remains one now.

OK, I'll buy that based on the inside info!

I saw Ministry after Twitch (one of my all-time favorite records), before Land of Rape and Honey hit the streets. It was so fuckin scary! At one point Al grabbed one of the keyboard players by the back of the head and played a rhythmic noise-drum part on the synth with the guy's face. My ears are still ringing from that show!

..."punk" is. So does everyone else here. And that is the point (and the fun) of this whole thread.

People tend to glamorize the UK origins of punk a bit to much, I think. It was "The Great Rock and Roll Swindle", after all. Malcolm McLaren came up with the idea for the Sex Pistols as a way to sell bondage gear from his shop.

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

Not to say a huge cultural phenomenon was not occurring. But it was not unique to the UK, nor was music that can be termed as "punk" (at least not according to many other people's definitions). The economy was in the dumps, we were coming out of Watergate and Viet Nam, and all the kids were getting was "I'd Really Love to See You Tonight" by England Dan & Jon Ford Coley. The music in the UK, the US, and elsewhere converged with sociological and cultural events to meld into the "punk" movement, a loosely defined entity which did and still does mean many things to many people. I do not think it had a discreet place or time of origin. I believe it evolved (I guess that makes me a "punk Darwinist" and you a "punk Creationist"!).

Regarding your question:
"Did Joe Strummer listen to the 13th Floor Elevators? As I recall, he had a taste for old blues and 60's R&B."

Yes, but so did the 13th Floor Elevators, probably. And from that, they both came up with music that might be termed "punk". ON EDIT: They're a case of convergent evolution, not unlike bats and birds.

The reason the Clash etc affected me so much was the political slant. I do think people tend to forget the economic dissatisfaction aspect.

about your definition of punk.
But I don't give a fuck about the history of punk, or what instruments they play, or what amps they use, or what meter they prefer, or if they use the same three chords over and over again. Don't be all ivory tower about it; that kills it.
But most of all I sure as hell am not letting MTV or Hot Topic define punk for me either. Corporations will suck the soul and feeling out of any genre of music if you let them. I don't care if they sell out later. So the remaining Ramones are making off like bandits now, doesn't change the fact that the music is great. It has to have real feeling behind it when its recorded.
And it sure as hell better sound best when played LOUD!

THAT's the question!

Why the fuck should I care what you think?

Wannabe. :P

Get lost I have Biology to study. :P

Here me out as I rant

What is spirituality. It's the deconstruction of the self. Its the tearing down of the ultimate pre-conceived notion - I am I. Thats where separation comes in. I am CStheT not Whitacre D_WI, not bizarro CStheT (http://www.joshstrength.com ), not that table, not God, not the absence of God, not anything other than CStheT. That's a phalacy derived by my phsyche to ensure I survive in the physical world. Well spirituality is the ultimate protest to that concept. That concept is the driving force behind so many of our most prominent issues - fear of death, violence, religious intolerance, etc. Its primal in our beings. The hindu asthetics and mystics of all stripes have been raging against this "ego problem" for millenia.

Punk is, as I said, a protest against authority - a "kiss my ass" to standards and conventions and anything that forces us to think, feel or do anything contrary to what deep inside we feel. Sure, it may manifest itself in socio/political/religio/whatever protest but in the end it is a smashing down of all barriers. Punk is a revolution in its entirity. Punk has reared its head in visual art/music/drama/politics/ethics/religion and every other construct where there were barriers. So when its distilled thge real barrier is within ourselves. The fact that we are clinging so hard to ourselves - man FUCK THAT!!!

It's time for me to deconstruct CStheT and build myself up from the ground up rejecting the fucking rules - THAT'S PUNK!!

And if everyone did it we'd be real creatures, not people operating on someone elses rules. Maybe I am equating punk with anarchy - I don't see that much distinction.


Thanks for letting me rant, but your question has played upon something I have been exploring for a while.

Hardcore Zen; Punk Rock, Monster Movies & the Truth About Reality by Brad Warner? It sitting on top of my to read pile. "This is Zen for people who don't give a rat's ass about Zen" It looks good.

Can you tell me more?

The reason its at the top of my to read pile is that its finals week and I have to study, otherwise I would be reading it. :(
Here is his website though; http://www2.gol.com/users/doubtboy/

My fiance is in finals so I feel for ya

:toast:

Gotta get back to Bio! :hi:

It's worse! MUCH worse!! I usually give up on Freepers after 2-3 posts. But I can't stop posting here. You've made me waste half my afternoon! It's impacting my JOB! Bastard!

On that note, and as to your core question: "Does anybody care?"

Well, obviously, I (and all the others) do. I think it's because:

(1) Music imparts an emotional connection which is often deeply personal to people. They feel the music they are into is "theirs" and they get a bit defensive about it. The need to define it is akin to the need to define oneself.

(2) Even moreso with punk, because it's not just the music. But particularly for people who have been in the punk "scene", they have more at stake. Because it generally has been so counter-cultural, these people have more invested in it; they have often risked life and limb being a part of it (particularly if you live in redneck havens such as mine).

(3) It's fun to talk about music. A hell of a lot more fun than talking about torture chambers.

(4) But as an extension of (3), in the big picture of world events, should we REALLY care?

The answer, of course, is NO.

You may rest easy. In few hundred years, music from this era WILL be filed alphabetically in "record stores", and the only "genre" it will be under will be "popular music from the turn of the 21st Century". "Sex Pistols" will be a few entries away from "Ronnie Spector", and "The Clash" and "Johnny Cash" will be lying in the same electro-secure, cranially-implanted, micro-bin (just as it always should have been).

Punk Rock is a MUSICAL FORM, a subgenre of Rock. It is high-energy, usually high-speed style of music played in the small band format, utilizing guitars, bass, and drums. No synths, no samplers, no turntables, no performance art.

The singing is usually snotty and hopefully angry-sounding. The lyrics can be about political issues (early Husker Du) or they can be about personal issues (late Husker Du) or they can be about nothing at all (Wire) or they can be funny (John Otway, Black Randy). It can be melodic (the Descendents) or it can be willfully ugly (The Necros). The guitars can be distorted (Black Flag) or trebly and clean (Minutemen). The bass can be busy (The Jam, Minutemen) but it cannot be funky (Red Hot Chili Peppers). The Drummer can be sloppy (The Misfits) or he can be tighter than a high school principal's asshole (Fugazi).

Sum 41, Blink 182, et al, ARE (!!!!!) playing Punk Rock, it's just not GOOD Punk Rock. (there are always good and bad examples of every genre.) Punk Rock is a TYPE OF MUSIC.

It is NOT an "attitude," it is NOT a "visual style," it is not "A howl at the suffocating conformity of society's woof woof blah blah." All the extra-musical trappings are media creations, mere whiffs of some marketing jack-ass's rectal imagination. When you see something or someone who is NOT playing music in the above-mentioned way described as "Punk Rock" what you are experiencing is media manipulation, and/or the willful by-product of an overactive imagination, or in the case of Avril Levigne, effective brainwashi- oops, I mean target marketing.

"Manipulating the Media" is not Punk Rock. Madonna is not punk rock. James Dean is not Punk Rock. Morrissey is not Punk Rock. Lenny Bruce is not Punk Rock. Public Enemy is not Punk Rock. They are all cool people, to be sure, but that doesn't make them PUNK ROCK MUSICIANS. (This confusing of pop style and rock substance is what has been eating away at the body of Rock music for over thirty years.)

You can get in some grimy van, beat up audience members, live on 3 bucks a day, have a mohawk, wear a leather jacket and eyeliner, eat your own shit, BUT UNLESS YOU ARE ACTUALLY PLAYING MUSIC WITHIN THE PROSCRIBED FORM, you are NOT PUNK ROCK.

Again: Punk Rock is a musical form, and the shit that goes along with it is periphery an has nothing to do with music. Please consult Joe Carducci's "Rock and the Pop Narcotic" for any further information.

No blind spots in the leopard's eyes
Can only help to jeopardize
The lives of lambs, the shepherd cries
An afterlife for a silverfish
Eternal dust less ticklish
Than the clean room, a houseguest's wish
He lies on his side, is he trying to hide?
In fact it's the earth, which he's known since birth
Face worker, a serpentine miner
A roof falls, an underliner
Of leaf structure, the egg timer

I think I prove my point!
:evilgrin:

Thus, not all punk is political.

And yet it features synths. Ha!

Those are guitars going through Chorus pedals. Ask Mike Thorne (who DID get them to sully their music with synths on "154").

I surrender to your astonishing knowledge of detail.

No synths, no samplers.

So, one of punk rock's first prophets, Mark Perry, did NOT head up a punk rock band? After all, the first song on the first Alternative T.V. LP was all synth....

Early progenitors of the genre didn't have the definitions all that nailed down yet, so guys like Little Richard could use the piano as a lead instrument in a form which later on was defined by which instruments (guitar/bass/drums) it was using, and get away with it. Early mistakes are tolerated, but later intentional perversions (Depeche Mode, etc.) are not. If you want to use synths NOW, it's not Punk Rock. So occasionally in the early history of the music, there can be some synth for coloration, but in order to define Punk Rock as it stands today, synth must be left out.

And Suicide were a couple of performance artists, not musicians.

-- in 1972. Yet, I don't hear too many people saying that it wasn't a "soul" song.

And Martin Rev WAS SO a musician! Okay, i'll give ya Vega.

I think my concern over this "what is punk"/"what is not punk" thing is this: for every attempt to define, an exception can be made. And there are also all those grey areas.

Let me be clear -- I DON'T FUCKING CARE if something is punk or not, I listen to music because I LIKE that particular music, whatever the genre. But I would like to know your opinions on the specific examples I gave in my original post, as well as some others.

Stooges, MC5, VU, Modern Lovers, New York Dolls -- Punk? Pre-Punk?

Troggs, Sonics, ? and the Mysterians -- Punk? Garage Rock? Something Else?

Motorhead -- Punk? Metal?

You've mentioned the Minutemen as "punk," what of Television? I think of both bands as straddling the line between jazz and your definition of punk. Sure, Television's songs were longer....

All of the above. All were musicians who were proficient on their instruments enough to effect interplay and combustion when playing with each other. And all of the above played in a high-enegy, tense, somewhat angry style, harnessing the harshness of their instumental timbres to create a music that may predate "punk rock" as we define it today, but pretty much sets the sonic standard.

Troggs, Sonics....Garage Rock. Which is similar to Punk, chronologically falls outside the the proscribed time window of which we peak, ie. when rock attained self-conciousness, circa 1976-77. Stooges, MC5, etc? Sonic touchstones for the Punk Rock artists to come. Templates for the musicians, but again, falling into a window before the "growing up" or post-adolescence of the form. Thus, better considered as important antecedents to the genre rather than members, in the way that Buddy Holly was an important antecedent to the Beatles.

Television? Yes, Punk Rock. Even within the limits I set out as my definition, there are still a wide array of timbral colors available, as well as novel approaches to arrangement and interplay. The fact that Televison jammed on stage (like Black Flag and the other SST bands did later, too) does not negate the force with which their instrumental muse hit.

As Chuck Eddy has pointed out, a lot of the most interesting cultural totems are the ones which fall between genres, like player-coaches in baseball (his example). I don't totlally agree, but in the case of these important, yet-not Punk Rock bands, I'd say it's spot on. Most of my favorite bands and artists are those which are anachronistic in their approaches, ala Simply Saucer, the Soft Boys, Sparks, American Music Club; these bands, in hindsight, seem like they were ahead (or sideways) of their time. The same thing with the "influence" bands of Punk Rock.

1) What, then, of the fact that the term "punk rock" was first used to describe mid-'60s garage bands?

2) I do not consider the music of Al Hedges to be punk rock. Yet it is rough, usually high-energy, always seeming on the verge of falling apart, and often angry. Is Al Hedges punk?

Only the term "flying saucers" was used. Over time, people started seeing objects that were NOT saucer-shaped, so the term had to be overhauled. Same thing with Greg Sage's definition of "punk rock."

BTW, have you heard the shit that used to be called "power pop?" (speaking of Greg Sage...) Some of that shit is AWFUL. Shoes, 20/20, Holly and the Italians, etc. Awful shit. But nowadays the term can be used to describe bands as diverse as Guided by Voices and Fountains of Wayne. But still, what holds is the SUBSTANCE of the term in regards to the limning of musical form: poppy, upbeat melodies with overdriven guitars and mid-to-uptempo rythym arrangements. The early stuff just hadn't grown up yet.

So, then, when early-70's critics (NOT musicians, I must point out) started using the term "Punk Rock" to describe the music of mid-60's garage bands, it was done in the spirit of a half-ironic, highbrow-seeking-to-slum intellectual homage. Certainly the Troggs themselves would tell you that they were just playing rock and roll. They'd probably have taken "Punk" as an insult in 1966. Again, this is another case of sociology intruding on Rock (MUSIC!!!) grounds. And the inevitable result is Adam and the Ants or Avril Levinge when we allow non-musicians with no understanding of how music in a small band format is created to define genres for the musicians themselves. (the best artists are those with a minimum of self-conciousness. Surely Steve Jones didn't read anything by Greil Marcus before charting a harsh course with the Pistols.)

I'd consider roughly half of what I heard on your CD to be punk. There's also some folky, lo-fi, experimental stuff on there, too.

"Return of the Rat" kicks ass.

Don't much care for the Wipers' power-pop stuff. ;)

Founder of Bomp magazine, etc. Whoopsy!!

Your reputation as a know-it-all would be seriously compromised if anyone were reading this thread anymore ;)

I hate you

Hate is all around me, and so the feeling grows.

Its so fine, its sunshine
Its the word hate

Put another dime in the jukebox, baby!

hate to hate you baby!

Hate, hate, hate...
Hate, hate, hate...
All you need is hate!

Then I have no use for either of you. Poseurs!


Viva Nada!

You're skirt doth tear as you flee monsieur nancyman!

the greatest hate of all is inside of you

"life" with the word "asshole" every time you hear it sung.


"Got to get you into my asshole....." Etc. Hours of fun! (inspired by Lester Bangs.)

"life" with the word "asshole" every time you hear it sung.


"Got to get you into my asshole....." Etc. Hours of fun! (inspired by Lester Bangs.)

its my asshole

Koolzip doesn't care what we think about musical genres.

THAT'S SO PUNK ROCK! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

He's a hoity toity b!tch anyway!

Hoity, I grant you. But toity? Koolzip? I don't think so.

iceberg lettuce and white bread (other foods must not have been good enough, pure enough) for his pristine colon to handle. But in my book he's got alot to prove with his high falutin' genre-izations and oohh ohh I read this once and ooh oohh I'll regurgitate someone elses tired theory about......wait a minute, I'm talking about ME!

Never mind - sorry Koolzip.

Oh and still kiss my ass though please!

...READING about music -- he'd be a true authority!

Aw, Koolzip, you know we're just funnin' ya.

You've got to make the moments man, cause it's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions. What are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths, what are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something -- that's dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you either love somebody or you hate them.

semicatatonic states where I begin to spew forth Hopperean amphetimine tinged hyperbole.

My vapors are merging with the infinate!!!

While Zues mixed with the mire.

the ladies!

Sheesh!

... Pre-Punk: Iggy Pop
... Punk: Sex Pistols, Early Clash, Richard Hell, etc
... Post-Punk: Television

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" :)

Which is, I suppose, what we're doing!

or was it glass blowing?

Punk is just about taking music away from the over produced, profit oriented, mass marketed studio music, and putting it back into the hands of kids who want to play in their garage, know three chords and how to scream.

And it isn't anarchy. It's the music industry's version of populism.

Punk can affect any genre of music--put the punk in Rock and Roll and you get...Punk Rock, that's right. Punk Hip Hop and you get Rap, punk Disco and you get New Wave.

I'm waiting for someone to successfully punk Country. X did it some, and other bands as well, I'm sure.

In that sense, Punk can never be dead.

"Man it's punk rock! You don't need to know how to play, you just gotta stand up there and be a punk!"

Interesting.

Are we going for the never-ending thread that actually is focused on a topic?